도로지정 공고 부존재확인 등
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. At the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of absence of the first instance court’s determination of the designation of a road as of April 17, 2015, the first instance court’s determination of the designation of a road as of May 25, 2016, the first instance court’s determination of invalidity of the first instance court’s determination of the land category as of August 26, 2015, and the first instance court’s determination of invalidity of the first instance court’s determination of the first instance court’s determination of the land category as of April 17, 2015, and confirmed that the first instance court’s determination of the designation of a road as of May 25, 2016 and the first instance determination of the land category as of August 26, 2015 are null and void.
The plaintiff did not appeal against this, and since the defendant filed an appeal against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the primary and preliminary claims concerning the notice of designation of the road as of May 25, 2016 and the claim for land category change disposition as of August 26, 2015.
2. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted to the court of first instance contains each description of the evidence Nos. 7 through 10 (including the serial number) submitted to this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the
Part 4 to 7 pages 4 shall be deleted.
The 7th 5th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth 2.
Article 15 to 17 of the 9th Act provides that "the first disposition of this case is difficult" shall be deemed to be an administrative disposition with the appearance of the designation of a road because the first disposition of this case does not entirely state the kind, section, extension, width and location of the road with respect to the road subject to the designation of a road.