beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as follows. The court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (b) the court of first instance is as follows: (c) the 5th, 19, and 20 of the 5th, 19, and 20 of the 5th, 20 shall not be able to “shall not be able to be able to be able to be
【Supplementary Decision】
A. Despite the fact that the plaintiffs' arguments were already revealed in related cases where the land F and H land are not a road subject to the Road Act, the disposition imposing indemnity of this case on the premise that each of the above land is a road subject to the Road Act is significant and apparent.
Even if the defect of the disposition imposing indemnity of this case is not clear, it is not necessary to protect a third party or public trust believed to be effective in relation to the disposition imposing indemnity of this case. Since it falls under a case where the need to remedy the rights and interests of the plaintiffs and correct the illegal result much more, it cannot be deemed that the apparentness is not separately required in determining the grounds for invalidation of the disposition imposing indemnity of this case. Thus, the disposition imposing indemnity of this case is null
B. 1) In order to say that an administrative disposition is void as a matter of course, it is insufficient to say that there is an illegality in the disposition. In order to determine whether the defect is a serious violation of the important part of the law and is objectively obvious, and whether the defect is significant and obvious, it is necessary to examine the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law and to reasonably consider the specificity of the specific case itself at the same time (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu4615, Jul. 11, 1995).