1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the cancellation part is dismissed.

1. The reasons for this part of this Court’s reasoning are as follows: “1. Fact-finding is the same as the entry of facts; thus, this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. The reasons for this Court’s assertion by the parties are as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of

3. Determination

A. Even if a certain administrative disposition is revoked in an appeal litigation after the appeal is filed, it cannot be concluded that the pertinent administrative disposition under res judicata is a tort by a public official’s intentional or negligent act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da53413, Sept. 17, 199). In a case where a public official in charge of such administrative disposition is recognized to have lost objective legitimacy by neglecting objective duty of care when considering the general public’s standard, it shall be reasonable to deem that the public official in charge of such administrative disposition satisfied the requirements for State liability under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act in a case where it is recognized that such administrative disposition has lost objective legitimacy. In such a case, whether the administrative disposition has lost objective legitimacy shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances such as the type and nature of the gains of infringement, the form and cause of the administrative disposition infringing upon, the victim’s involvement in the exercise of the administrative disposition, the degree and degree of damage, etc.

(Supreme Court Decision 9Da70600 delivered on May 12, 2000). B

According to the facts found earlier, on September 12, 2016, the president of the Defendant waterworks business filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Gwangju District Court 2016Guhap704, and the Gwangju District Court on June 2017.