1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 5, 2002, registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of C on August 7, 2002, with respect to the Busan Pungdong-gu Daejeon Pungdong-gu Busan Metropolitan City Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the instant housing”) 98.85 square meters for a knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knifeg.

B. The instant housing is located within the business zone of the D Development Project implemented by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant project”). On June 2016, the Defendant: (a) established relocation measures to the effect that “the person who had owned and resided in the instant project zone before the base date ( July 21, 2009), while continuously possessing the permitted house within the relevant project zone from the date of concluding the compensation contract or the ruling of expropriation, is subject to relocation measures; and (b) announced the person who has lost his/her residence and living base due to the instant project to take relocation measures.

C. On November 4, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant housing on October 26, 2015 due to the consultation acquisition of the public land dated October 26, 2015.

On August 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for migration and livelihood measures to supply migrants’ housing site. However, on May 31, 2017, the Defendant rendered a non-disqualification disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s residency requirements are not met.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion has been continuously residing in the instant house since before the reference date, and the place of work has been inevitably moved to Seoul to move out and retired, and the weekend was left and resided in the instant house if it falls short of the week.

Nevertheless, this case was made on the ground that the plaintiff's residential requirements were not satisfied.