beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court of this case cited the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff's repeated or new arguments at the court of first instance as stated in Paragraph 2 below. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420
2. Additional determination
A. First, the Plaintiff asserts that it is unlawful for the Defendant to make a public announcement of the determination of a road zone when it did not secure the ownership of the instant land, and thereafter, the Plaintiff, who lawfully acquired the ownership of the instant land, is not obligated to restore it to the road, and thus, the instant disposition based on the illegal restoration order is unlawful.
However, as long as the order of restoration to a road, which is the preceding act, is not null and void, it cannot be deemed that it succeeded to the disposition of this case, which is the subsequent act of the defect. In addition, Article 49-2 (2) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 5894 of Feb. 8, 199), which was enforced at the time of the determination and public notice of the road zone concerning the land of this case, provides that the decision or alteration of the road zone shall be deemed a project approval under Article 14 of the Land Expropriation Act, and an application for a ruling shall be filed within the implementation period of road works (Article 82 (2) of the current Road Act also provides that the right to the land within the road zone shall not be acquired prior to the public notice of the determination of the road zone, and the purchaser of the land which is the site of this case shall be deemed to have acquired the ownership with such burden (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 65Da2105, Jul. 26, 196).