A. Based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, and determination of issues) is sufficiently reasonable.

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for an additional determination as to a new argument in the appellate court, as described in paragraph (2) below. As such, the reasoning of this Court is as follows:

B. If so, all of the plaintiff's main claim and conjunctive claim against the defendants should be dismissed on the ground that there is no reasonable ground.

The judgment of the first instance, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim against the Defendants, is justifiable in conclusion, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants is without merit.

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the conjunctive claim against the defendants added in the appellate trial are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

2. Parts to be determined additionally

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The judgment revoking an administrative disposition is different from the judgment of formation in civil procedure, and the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body is the illegality of the administrative disposition. The effect of the cancellation is the effect of the law to confirm the illegality, and its effect is limited to the scope of res judicata.

The final and conclusive judgment of this case, which is the cancellation of administrative disposition, has the formation ability through the final and conclusive judgment, and its formation ability is "the establishment of passage of the plaintiff and the act of cutting sex constitutes farmland improvement", and the above effect extends to the defendants who are third parties.

Therefore, the defendants cannot oppose their rights under their private law.

B. The Defendants’ instant case.