1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. 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 following matters among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of

The space between the 4th parallel 13 to 8th parallel 13 is as follows:

“(1)A road that is subject to the Road Act is subject to the imposition of indemnity under Article 94 of the Road Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du11849, Sept. 13, 2012). However, even though it is deemed that the Defendant issued a public notice on the recognition of the route of the former road on May 15, 199, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the road zone was determined and publicly announced on the route of the former road. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant road is subject to the application of indemnity under the Urban Planning Act or the Urban Redevelopment Act, such as the public notice on the designation or recognition of the route under the Road Act and the public notice on the designation or approval of the road zone under the Urban Redevelopment Act or the public notice on the implementation plan under the Urban Redevelopment Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant project is subject to the imposition of indemnity for the former road cannot be said to be subject to the application of indemnity for the latter.

2. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.