1. The Defendant’s disposition of excluding those subject to relocation measures against the Plaintiff on November 11, 2016 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant is the project implementer of the housing site development project B (hereinafter “instant project”), and the Plaintiff is the owner at the time of the conclusion of the indemnity contract for the ground building C (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The defendant has established and implemented relocation measures pursuant to Article 78 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, and the criteria for selecting those eligible to be supplied with the housing site for migrants are as follows:

A person who has continuously owned and has continuously resided in a project district since one year prior to the date of public inspection and public announcement of the designation of a prearranged area for housing development ( October 27, 2006) and until the date of conclusion of a compensation contract or the date of adjudication of expropriation, and who has been relocated due to the implementation of the project after receiving compensation for the house from the Corporation by Korea, the owner of the building without permission, the corporation, or the organization after January 2

C. The Plaintiff entered into a compensation contract with the Defendant on the instant building, etc., and subsequently requested the Defendant to select himself as a person subject to relocation measures (supply of a resettled housing site), but the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on November 11, 2016, that “the Plaintiff was excluded from the person subject to relocation measures because it did not meet the requirements for the subject and

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Disposition of this case’s ground for recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 1, 2, and 6, each entry of Gap’s No. 1, and Eul’s No. 1 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) procedural defect defendant did not present the grounds and reasons in writing to the plaintiff in rendering the instant disposition. The instant disposition is unlawful in violation of Article 23 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act. 2) The plaintiff is a person who has continuously owned and resided in the instant project district from one year before the date of public announcement of designation of the planned area for housing development to the date of conclusion of the indemnity contract, and who has continued to own the house within the instant project district from the defendant.