1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a stable and manager building on the ground outside Pyeongtaek-si B, and each of the above buildings was located within the project district of the “C District Housing Site Development Project” implemented by the Defendant (the name was changed to the “C District Housing Development Project”; hereinafter the “instant project”). The ownership was transferred to the Defendant for the reason of an agreement on the land for public use.

B. Around July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a request to select a single house site for migrants to be supplied with the said site.

On April 29, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff became disqualified for the relocation measures (hereinafter referred to as “instant non-qualified notification”), and the written notification stated that “In the event there is an objection to the result of the review on the relocation measures, the Defendant submitted a written notification to the Plaintiff by May 29, 2015, and submitted an objection and additional supporting documents, etc. by the date of the submission. In addition, the written notification stating that “In the event that there is an objection to the result of the review on the relocation measures, the results of the examination on the application during that period shall be known to the effect that the decision would have become final and conclusive, and the main time shall be avoided within 90 days from the date of receipt of the pertinent notification in accordance with the Administrative Appeals Act or the Administrative Litigation Act (hereinafter referred to as “instant notification”).”

C. Accordingly, on May 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection against “those selected as disqualified for relocation measures” with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant objection”), and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on July 10, 2015 that the Plaintiff became disqualified for relocation measures.

(hereinafter “Notification of this case”). 【The ground for recognition of this case’s existence of no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The plaintiff sought revocation on the premise that the notice of this case constitutes a disposition, and the defendant has de facto been given the notice of this case.