1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted to the court of first instance is added to the evidence additionally

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for adding "2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim that was made by either the plaintiff or the plaintiff or the plaintiff added to this court", and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the decision of this court shall be cited including the summary in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

3. The judgment on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit was made by the first 4 parallels “3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit”

3 The 3rd Haw one lawsuit filed the instant lawsuit, and thus, the instant lawsuit was filed with “The revocation of the instant disposition by filing the instant lawsuit in the primary claim,” and the said part of the claim was filed with “The said part of the claim.”

6 The lawsuit of this case shall be filed with "the primary part of the lawsuit of this case".

6. The action of this case shall be taken into consideration by inserting 6. The part of the claim in question shall be referred to as "the primary part of the claim."

6 11 of the 6th 11st action "the action of this case" shall be taken into consideration as "the main part of the lawsuit of this case".

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The gist of the assertion is that the instant disposition violates the duty of objection procedure notification under Article 26 of the Administrative Procedures Act and the duty of presentation of reasons under Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

Furthermore, the cadastral non-conformity of the land of this case occurred due to the reasons attributable to the defendant, and the disposition of this case also violates the principle of trust protection, the principle of good faith, the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights, and the principle of proportionality.

Since the above defect is a serious violation of laws and regulations and the existence of the defect is apparent, it is sought to confirm the invalidity of the disposition of this case.

(b).