beta
Text
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence
(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant stated that the Defendant’s response on June 3, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) shall be subject to revocation litigation as a disposition of refusal, which is an administrative disposition, by the court. This court also has the same position as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (from April 3 to 12 of the judgment of the first instance) with respect to the nature of the disposition.
2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion was that the defendant made the disposition of this case on the ground that the consultation about the designation of exclusive road was in progress. ① The defendant's refusal of the permission to occupy and use the exclusive road was unlawful in spite of the lack of legal grounds for refusing to grant the permission (the allegation of violation of Acts and subordinate statutes). ② The defendant issued the permission to occupy and use the exclusive road to secure the access road to the juvenile training center located in approximately 200 meters away from the project site of this case. Thus, the refusal of the plaintiffs' request is a violation of the principle of self-defense or the principle of equality (the assertion of violation of the principle of equality). ③ The designation of exclusive road is merely an abstract plan. On the other hand, while the plaintiffs acquired the project site of this case, 15,543,070 won as the successful bid price and incidental expenses, and 4,430 million won as the design cost to construct the gas station, etc. on the project site of this case, and the disposition of this case was unlawful in proportion to the property damage of this case.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do1148 delivered on May 1, 201).