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.

With respect to the instant case cited by the judgment of the first instance, the reasoning of this court is as follows, except where the Plaintiff added a judgment on the allegations added in the trial of the first instance as set forth in paragraph (2), since it is identical to the part against the Defendant among the grounds of the judgment of the first instance, it shall be cited by the main sentence of

As to the plaintiff's first argument on the addition, Article 29 (1) 4 of the Road Act (Legal Fiction of authorization, permission, etc. under other Acts) (1) If a road management authority determines or alters a road zone pursuant to Article 25 of the Road Act, the matters consulted with the head of the relevant administrative agency pursuant to paragraph (2) regarding the following authorization, permission, etc. shall be deemed to have been obtained, and if a determination or alteration of a road zone is publicly notified, the relevant authorization, permission, etc. shall be deemed to have been publicly notified or announced:

1. Above

3. Omitted.

4. It argues that the determination of an urban or Gun management plan under Article 30 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (limited to roads under Article 10 of this Act, and green areas and traffic squares which are urban or Gun planning facilities installed for buffer purposes in relation thereto), permission for development activities under Article 56 of the same Act, permission for activities in an urbanization-coordination zone under Article 81 (2) of the same Act, and the determination of an urban management plan under Article 88 of the same Act is deemed to have been made;

As seen earlier, the “infrastructure for maintenance owned by the State or a local government that is gratuitously transferred to a project implementer” should be determined and installed by the urban management planning under the National Land Planning Act prior to the authorization for the implementation of a rearrangement project.

In addition, taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 5, it is recognized that the authorization of the implementation of the rearrangement project was granted on May 3, 2011 for the instant project.

However, on the road of this case before May 3, 2011.