1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) add “relevant Acts and subordinate statutes added to the court of first instance” to the “related Acts and subordinate statutes” attached to the court of first instance; and (b) add 5 through 8 and 9 under the seventh part of the court of first instance as follows; and (c) other than the parts to be determined additionally under the following paragraph (2), it is identical to the corresponding part of the grounds for the court of first instance; and (d) therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary order for restoration to the original state is determined on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff has lawfully filed an administrative appeal or administrative litigation against the above first order for restoration to the original state, which is an administrative disposition.

As seen earlier, in the instant case where it is inevitable to dismiss the instant order for restoration on the ground that the subsequent disposition is not a disposition for restoration (it is unlawful that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit, even if the Plaintiff’s subject matter of cancellation is the primary order for restoration to its original state), and as the Plaintiff, who became unable to dispute the illegality due to the confirmation of the first order for restoration to its original state, which is the preceding act, cannot assert the illegality of the instant order for restoration on the ground of the illegality of the instant order for restoration, which is the preceding act, in the instant order disposition

(See Supreme Court Decision 81Nu293 delivered on July 27, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 81Nu44 delivered on May 25, 1982, etc.). In the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the extension of road, economic loss, permission for use, and alternative method of imposing occupation fees, etc. is illegal, and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the extension of road, economic loss, and alternative method of imposing occupation fees, etc. are not considered as the illegality of the instant order itself, but as to the restoration order, which is the prior act.

Therefore, the illegality of the instant disposition cannot be asserted on the ground of this, as well as the written evidence No. 13 and No. 18 are newly established by the Plaintiff.