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.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination of addition as to the allegations made by the plaintiff in the trial as set forth in paragraph (3) below, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Under the third written judgment of the first instance court, the “reasons for the second disposition” in the 4th and 8th 7th , respectively, shall be described as the “reason for the First and Second Disposition”.

B. On the 7th written judgment of the first instance court, according to Articles 9 and 13(1) of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, and Articles 14 and 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, “Civil Petitions Treatment Act” shall be construed as “under Articles 9 and 22 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act and Articles 24 and 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.”

(c) Forms 13 through 14, 13, 9, and 14, of the judgment of the first instance shall be applied as follows:

A) Prior to the determination of the legitimacy of the grounds for the instant disposition No. 1, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff had already obtained permission from the Jeju Mayor to open a private road on access roads to the instant building (hereinafter “instant permission”) at the time of the instant disposition.

According to the evidence No. 3 and evidence No. 29, Jeju Mayor issued a disposition to revoke the permission of opening the private road of this case on May 18, 2016, which was after the disposition of this case, on the ground that the requirements for farmland replacement were not met and the permission of diversion of farmland for B land included in the private road of this case was not granted on May 18, 2016, but the administrative litigation (No. 2016Guhap543, Jeju District Court Decision 2016Guhap543, April 19, 2017) filed by the Plaintiff was confirmed that the disposition of cancellation of the permission of opening the private road of this case was null and void. Thus, as long as the permission of opening the private road of this case was not null and void or revoked, the part of the permission of opening