1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. In accordance with the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, etc. on January 18, 2007, the Defendant is a project developer who implemented the instant project after obtaining approval from the Minister of Construction and Transportation for a development plan (Public Notice AP of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation) concerning the AJ District Housing Site Development Promotion Project (hereinafter “instant project”).

Within the instant project zone, Plaintiff A operates a restaurant, and the rest of the Plaintiffs are running each livestock industry.

B. The Defendant determined that, in order to be selected as a person subject to measures for living, who is supplied with a commercial site by establishing measures for resettlement and living regarding the instant business, the Defendant should conduct the relevant business from June 29, 2004, which was the date of public notice on the designation of the district, to the date of first public notice on the designation of the district, and received business compensation (Plaintiff A) or livestock industry compensation (Plaintiff

C. The Defendant entered into a compensation contract with each of the Plaintiffs listed in the column of “Plaintiff” in the attached Form as of the date stated in the “payment date” column in the attached Form. D.

The Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for the selection of themselves as a person eligible for livelihood countermeasures (the supply of a shopping site). However, on January 29, 2015, the Defendant, upon examining the Plaintiffs’ application, notified the Plaintiffs that they do not constitute a person eligible for livelihood measures, as stated in the “disqualified reasons” in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “first notification”). The notification reached the remainder of the Plaintiffs except Plaintiff AG and AH, as indicated in the “com delivery date” column in the attached Form 1, and reached Plaintiff AG and AH around the date of non-existent.

E. After that, the Plaintiffs filed an objection with the Defendant on April 30, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs that they do not constitute a person subject to livelihood measures, as stated in the “disqualified reasons” in the attached Table 2 notification, as a result of the examination of the Plaintiffs on the matters raised against the Plaintiffs on April 30, 2015.