1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On October 23, 2002, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor published a plan to implement an urban development project under the Urban Development Act (hereinafter “instant project”) on the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, D, E-Japan B district, etc. for the development of the Seoul Southern Northern District, and on November 25, 2002, the base date for the relocation measures of the instant project was determined and publicly announced as the F Public Notice of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on November 20, 2002.

(2) On January 15, 2004, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor published a public inspection announcement for the designation of an urban development zone, and on February 25, 2004, designated the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, D, E, Japan as an urban development zone (B urban development zone; hereinafter “instant project zone”) pursuant to the Urban Development Act and approved a development plan to develop the area in a successive order by dividing it into one or three districts under the Urban Development Act. The Defendant (the name at the time was the Seoul Urban Development Corporation) was designated as the implementer of the instant project.

(3) On October 19, 2004, the Defendant publicly announced the relocation measures for the instant project (hereinafter “instant relocation measures”), and determined the “housing owner”, “self-owned housing owner on his own land,” “owner of another person’s land,” “owner of a building without permission,” “owner of a building without permission,” “owner of a building without permission,” and “owner of a house as of the date of the public announcement of the indemnity plan after the base date,” etc. as the subject of the relocation measures.

In the relocation measures of this case, ① a person who owns a house on his own land in the project zone from before the base date of the relocation measures of this case to the date of conclusion of the contract or the date of expropriation ruling, ② a person who has consulted with and voluntarily relocated to the house concerned, ③ a person who satisfies the above requirements, and ③ a person who has not been a resident as of the base date of the relocation measures of this case and has been subject to the