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 plaintiffs are the parties. 1) The plaintiffs move the usfk base to the usfk Dog-Eup Dogwon (hereinafter "the project of this case")

(C) each land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) within the project zone.

2) The Defendant is an institution that performs the execution, management, supervision, etc. of the usfk facility project pursuant to the Special Act on Support, etc. for Pyeongtaek-si, etc. Following the relocation of the usfk base (hereinafter “U.S. Military Housing Site Support Act”).

B. The Plaintiffs filed the instant application and disposition 1) on March 2015, 2015, on the grounds that the Plaintiffs constituted commercial land suppliers pursuant to Article 33 of the U.S. Military Uniform Housing Site Development Act and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter “instant application”).

(2) On March 16, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant application on the ground that the Plaintiffs did not apply for commercial land supply within the time limit for application pursuant to Article 19(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on Support, etc. for Pyeongtaek-si, etc. from the relocation of the base of U.S. Armed Forces (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Support, etc.”) and, in the case of Plaintiffs B and I, the Defendant did not apply for commercial land supply (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) Although the defendant should have notified the plaintiffs of their application for commercial land supply pursuant to Article 19 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the US Military Uniform Housing Site Act, the plaintiffs failed to make such application. Thus, the disposition of this case that the plaintiffs lost their right to file an application is unlawful. 2) The plaintiff B did not notify the plaintiffs of their application.