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

A. On July 12, 2013, the Defendant determined and publicly announced the following road zones (hereinafter “instant road zone determination”) as the Busan Regional Land Management Office Notice No. 2013-313.

1) Details of determination of road zones

본문내 포함된 표 구분 종류 노선명 구간 총연장㎞ 중요경과지 구역결정 이유 결정 일반국도 국도 7호선(부산 중구~온성 유덕) 시점 : 울산 울주군 웅촌면 △△리 6.32 울산 울주군 웅촌면 대복리, 청량면 □□리, ◇리, ○○리 웅상-무거2 국도건설공사 시행 종점 : 울산 울주군 청령면 ○○리

2) Project period: July 20, 2012 to June 13, 2019

(iii) the period and place for the inspection of design documents, financing plans, etc.

(a) Period: within the project implementation period; and

(b) Place for public inspection: Busan Regional Land Management Office Plan, and/or Office of Construction Supervision of National Highway of 2000

B. Among the forests and fields (location omitted) incorporated into the road zone as a result of the determination of the instant road zone, the part of “A” (hereinafter “the forest and field of this case”) connecting each point of the annexed drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the forests and fields (location omitted) incorporated into the road zone is the Plaintiff’s mother-child funeral.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Considering that the Defendant’s decision on the instant road zone was made by incorporating the funeral room of the Plaintiff’s mother’s mother, which has not been much much time, into the road zone, there is a risk of infringing the Plaintiff’s right to commemorate each mother’s mother’s child, and that if the Defendant makes a decision on the road zone in accordance with the content of the route (review) prepared by the Defendant as an alternative, it can prevent the Plaintiff’s infringement of the Plaintiff’s right, the determination on the instant

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Considering the legislative form and content of the Road Act, the determination of a road zone by an administrative agency constitutes discretionary act that can be made by comprehensively taking into account the existing traffic volume and the changed traffic volume, economic feasibility and degree of traffic volume, connection with surrounding roads due to the location and distance of the road, impact on the surrounding environment, the scope and nature of the land to be incorporated into a road zone, road driving nature, project period, construction cost, etc. Accordingly, if an administrative agency has determined a road zone by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned various factors of consideration and a large number of interests, the determination of such administrative agency should be respected, provided that if such determination is based on arbitrary standards or infringes on private interests beyond the tolerance level under the generally accepted social norms, it shall be deemed that it constitutes a deviation

In light of the following circumstances, which can be known by comprehensively considering the health stand, the facts acknowledged earlier, and the purport of the entire arguments as to the instant road zone, i.e., ① prior to the determination of the instant road zone, the Defendant, from around December 2004 to April 2005, the feasibility study and verification of the Korea Development Institute from May 2005 to December 19, 2006, and Busan Metropolitan City, the Gyeongnam-do, Yangsan-si, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Ministry of National Defense, the Korea Rail Network Authority, the Korea Expressway Corporation, and the Korea Housing Corporation, etc., and ② the Defendant’s determination of the road zone to the effect that the Plaintiff’s selection of the ground for the road zone would increase the connection of the instant road zone with the new road zone by reviewing the relevant agency’s model construction plan and its appraisal of the new road zone as a result of the Plaintiff’s comprehensive review of the improvement of the road zone’s size and appraisal of the new road zone.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)