beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal on abuse of discretionary power
A. The determination of a road zone under Article 24 of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12248, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same) is an administrative action aimed at achieving the administrative goals, such as the development of traffic and the enhancement of public welfare through the improvement of road networks, based on professional and technical judgment regarding administration, based on the professional and technical judgment regarding administration. The former Road Act and its subordinate statutes only provide abstract administrative goals and procedures, but do not provide for the criteria or requirements for the determination of a road zone, and thus, the administrative body has a relatively broad freedom in determining a road zone that constitutes the pertinent route.
B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court, the lower court determined that the instant road zone decision was an abuse of discretion on the ground that the Defendant’s act of making the instant road zone to reduce the construction cost solely in order to reduce the construction cost despite the Defendant’s construction of the Plaintiff’s land, was unlawful by abusing its discretionary authority. The lower court determined that the instant road zone decision was not an abuse of discretionary authority, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant, in advance, conducted a comprehensive review of traffic demand forecast and feasibility study; (b) holding meetings with relevant agencies; and (c) holding resident presentation meetings; and (d) holding resident petitions including the Plaintiff; and (b) the alternative route asserted by the Plaintiff was higher than the route
In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on abuse of discretion, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. As to other grounds of appeal, the parties concerned have closed their arguments.