1. The Defendant’s disposition of excluding those subject to relocation measures against the Plaintiff on September 6, 2013 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 30, 2003, the Minister of Finance and Economy publicly announced the Ministry of Finance and Economy as a free economic zone B on a public announcement of the Ministry of Finance and Economy under Article 4 of the Act on Designation and Management of Free Economic Zones, which designated the Busan Gangseo-gu and Gyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (on the present Chang-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City), as a free economic zone. The Minister of Knowledge Economy approved the amendment of the development plan and the implementation plan for the development project for the Busan Special Metropolitan City D District D District D (hereinafter “this case”).

B. On August 14, 2009, the Defendant, as the implementer of the instant project, announced a compensation plan for the contents that “The Defendant, from the date of designation and public notification of the instant project ( October 30, 2003) to the date of conclusion of the compensation contract or the date of adjudication of expropriation, continuously owned and resided in the instant house within the instant project zone, and the Defendant, who received compensation for the said house from the Defendant and moved to the said house due to the implementation of the project (excluding an unauthorized building owner after January 25, 1989).”

C. On April 21, 2010, the Plaintiff, as the owner of a house (hereinafter “instant house”) located in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City E (hereinafter “instant land”) located in the instant project zone, entered into a compensation agreement with the Defendant for damages of KRW 25,812,100 for the obstacles to the instant house, etc. (hereinafter “instant compensation agreement”).

Then, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the selection of a person eligible for relocation measures for the instant project, but on September 6, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant house was not constructed before January 25, 1989, but constitutes an unauthorized building newly constructed after the base date (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, and 1-2.