1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The defendant is the implementer of the development project B (hereinafter referred to as the "project of this case"), and the plaintiff is the owner of the housing C in the Gu Government-si located in the project district of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff-owned housing").

The Defendant established and implemented relocation measures for those who lose their basis of livelihood following the provision of residential buildings due to the implementation of the instant project. Among them, the criteria for the selection of those who owned and resided in the said project district from one year before the date of the public announcement of the designation of the district ( October 9, 2006) to the date of the conclusion of the compensation contract or the date of the adjudication of expropriation, and who had received compensation for loss and moved to the implementation of the said project, and want to be supplied with the unauthorized building owner, corporation, or organization after January 25, 1989 (excluding an unauthorized building owner, corporation, or organization).

Around September 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a compensation agreement with the Defendant on the Plaintiff’s housing, etc. and applied for the selection of the Plaintiff as a person subject to supply of the said housing site. However, on October 27, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he/she was excluded from the selection of the eligible person because he/she did not meet the requirements for designation prescribed

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” (based on recognition), the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition and the overall purport of the pleading as to the facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings, constitutes a person subject to supply of migrants’s housing site, since the Plaintiff continued to reside in the Plaintiff’s housing from August 18, 1995 to September 2015, which was located in the instant project district, from the date of concluding the compensation contract, until September 2015, the date of concluding the compensation contract.

Judgment

In August 18, 1995, the Plaintiff resided in the Plaintiff’s house from around August 18, 1995 to around 2013, and was owned by the Plaintiff after the landslide in 2013.