하천점용허가권 원상복구
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.
The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is that the first head of the seventh judgment of the court of first instance is insufficient solely with the fact that there is an illegality in the disposition in order to make the administrative disposition null and void as a matter of course, and that the defect is serious and objectively obvious. In order to determine whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be considered from a teleological perspective and reasonable consideration of the specificity of the specific case itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du10968, Jun. 24, 2005; 2005Du11937, Sept. 21, 2007). Thus, the court’s explanation is identical to the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(However, since only the defendant appealed against the judgment of winning part of the plaintiff in the first instance, the scope of the party member's judgment is limited to this. Thus, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.