1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The defendant is the operator of the housing site development project (D publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs; hereinafter referred to as the "project of this case") with a project area of 1,174,600 square meters in Gyeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City B.

On September 9, 2010, the Plaintiff (former name E) received compensation for the instant housing from the Defendant, as the owner of the Goyang-gu F Ground Housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) located in the instant project area, Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu.

Around October 2008, the Defendant: (a) established and publicly announced the relocation measures for the instant project; (b) determined the requirements of the subject to the supply of the housing site for migrants as “a person who has continuously owned and resided in the instant housing continuously from one year prior to the date of public inspection and public announcement of the designation of the planned housing site development area ( July 29, 2005) until the date of concluding a compensation contract or the date of adjudication of expropriation, and who has received compensation for the said housing from the Defendant and emigrateed due to the execution of the instant project (excluding a corporation or organization and the owner of an unauthorized building constructed after

On March 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the selection of a person subject to relocation measures, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the exclusion of the person subject to relocation measures.

(hereinafter “Notice of March 27, 2015.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an objection on April 27, 2015, and the Defendant, on June 18, 2015, notified the Plaintiff of the instant non-conformity on the ground that the instant housing was an illegal building as a result of the review of the objection against relocation measures.

After that, on July 2018, the plaintiff submitted to the defendant a written application for the selection of the person subject to relocation measures (resettled site) through the subordinate law firm, which is the applicant representative, as the applicant representative.

On July 23, 2018, the defendant sent a reply to the effect that the plaintiff does not constitute a person eligible for supply of the migrants' housing site.

hereinafter referred to as "the reply of this case"

(ii) [based on recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, and the gist of the argument of the plaintiff as a whole.