1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as stated in Paragraph 2 below, and thus, it shall be cited as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. From 3th to 21th 20th 21th 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of “the land category of each of the instant land at the time of approval of the instant project falls under public facilities subject to gratuitous reversion under the provisions of the above Act,” which read “each of the instant land was determined as a road zone, and since a road was designated on the land adjacent to each of the instant land in its form and route, each of the instant land constitutes administrative property under the State Property Act. Each of the instant land constitutes administrative property for preservation under Article 6(2)4 of the State Property Act. Accordingly, each of the instant land at the time of approval of the instant project constitutes administrative property for preservation under Article 6(2)4 of the State Property Act.”

The 6th and 10th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be subject to each "court of the first instance".

From 6th to 21th of the first instance judgment, the first instance court's 6th of the same 16th of the same 21th of the same 20th of the two

In light of these facts, it is insufficient to recognize that each of the instant lands became administrative property, such as the commencement of official use as a road before the approval of the instant project, solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff up to the trial or the recognition of the above facts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

On the other hand, even if each of the lands of this case is assumed to constitute administrative property or preservation property under the State Property Act, as alleged by the Plaintiff, there is evidence to acknowledge the fact that each of the lands of this case was commenced for public use prior to the approval of the project of this case.