1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the parties' claims are examined by adding the evidence submitted to the court of first instance to the

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is partially dismissed as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the supplement of the judgment on the plaintiff's new assertion as stated in the following Paragraph 3. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. A modified part of the fourth page “71,930,400 won” shall be deemed to be “71,902,600 won”.

The following shall be added, “However,” in the second sentence of the 7th page:

At the time of replotting, the calculation rate of the premium rate in the process of replotting was not determined, and the defendant is anticipated to incur excessive area in the event of substitution of FLOT for the first land before replotting, but the shortage area occurs in the actual calculation process of the premium rate, and at the time."

3. Additional determination

A. In order to say that the administrative disposition related to the invalidation of the disposition imposing settlement money is null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient, and the defect must be objectively obvious, as it seriously violates the essential part of the law

In determining whether a defect is significant and obvious, it is necessary to examine the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law from a teleological perspective and to reasonably consider the specificity of the specific case itself.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du14363, Jun. 30, 2006). In addition, in an administrative litigation claiming the invalidation of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeking the confirmation thereof, the Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the grounds for invalidity.