1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant, as a project implementer of a district (Seoul E, Songpa-gu, Manam-si, and Hanam-si G G G G G G G) housing site development project (hereinafter “instant project”), has prepared and implemented a living measure by setting up the criteria for selecting the subjects of living measures in the attached districts in relation to the instant project (in the case of a business operator in the subdivision of persons subject to livelihood measures and the supply area of the aforementioned criteria, the part demanding that the business operator had been operated prior to the “date of public announcement of the designation of the planned district” is referred to as the “instant selection criteria

On January 23, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs that the livestock industry, etc. was engaged in within the business area of the instant project from before the date of public announcement for hearing the opinions of the residents, etc. on the designation of the planned area for housing site development (hereinafter “date of public announcement on the designation of the planned area”) and that the notification does not constitute a person eligible for the supply of the land for livelihood countermeasures. The notification contained the guidance stating that “if there is an objection in relation to the result of examination, the criteria for selection of the person eligible for the livelihood measures of the attached zone will be referred to and the time for filing an objection will be prior to the date of public announcement.”

C. The plaintiffs are above B.

On April 30, 2014, after receiving the notification of the statement, the Defendant filed an objection in accordance with the method notified by the Defendant to the Defendant. On April 30, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs that he/she does not constitute a person eligible for supply of the land for livelihood countermeasures (hereinafter “instant notification of reexamination”).

【Unsatisfyal grounds for recognition】Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-3, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, 3-4, 5-1 and 6-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the notice of reexamination of this case is legitimate

A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion in this case's reexamination notice should be revoked as it is unlawful in the following point.

(1) The defendant is the business of this case since before the date of public inspection of the planned area.