1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant is the executor of the Busan Ewater Pipeline development project (hereinafter “instant project”), which is promoted in Busan Gangseo-gu, C, and D, 11,885,000 square meters of land as Busan Gangseo-gu, Busan, and the progress of the instant project is as follows.

1) On July 12, 2012, the public announcement of inspection and briefing sessions for the designation of the Busan E waterfront (the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City public announcement F, hereinafter “instant public announcement”) is made.

(2) On December 14, 2012, public notice of the designation, etc. of Busan E Waterfront (Public notice by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) on May 16, 2013 (Public notice G3) and public notice of the plan for compensation of Busan E Waterfront development projects (public notice by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs) on September 5, 2014 (public notice of change) and approval, etc. of the implementation plan (public notice H).

B. On March 4, 2008, Company I acquired the ownership of the building of Gangseo-gu Busan (hereinafter “instant building”) located in the instant project zone, and on July 23, 2012, completed the registration of ownership transfer for the Plaintiff, who is the representative director of Company I, on June 23, 2012.

On November 5, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report on the instant building.

C. The Defendant, pursuant to Article 78 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) and Article 40 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Compensation Act, established relocation measures for the implementation of the project of this case, and publicly announced the compensation plan that “a person who has continued to own a house and has resided in the house continuously from before the date of the public announcement until the date of conclusion of the compensation contract or the date of adjudication of expropriation” as the person subject to relocation measures.

Since then, the Plaintiff applied for the selection of the Defendant as a person eligible for the relocation measures of the instant project, the Defendant determined the Plaintiff as a person ineligible for the relocation measures on June 30, 2015 on the ground that “the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant building after the date of relocation measures.”