1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the implementation of water supply construction works on the instant restaurant building (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in the name of “C” in Kim Jong-si B, the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff.

B. On June 16, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “it is impossible to construct a normal water supply pipe construction without passing through 169 square meters (hereinafter “instant transit land”), which is a private road at the present location at the time of the water supply construction work for waterworks, because it is not possible to construct a normal water supply pipe construction without passing through 169 square meters (hereinafter “instant transit land”), the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant transit land will implement the water supply system construction at the earliest as soon as possible, upon consultation with the owner of the instant transit land by submitting a written consent (the written consent for

(hereinafter referred to as “instant refusal disposition”). C.

After that, with the consent of the majority co-owners of the land of this case, the Defendant performed the construction of water supply pipes facilities concerning the restaurant of this case, and completed all of them at the time of the closing of argument of this case.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio.

A lawsuit seeking the cancellation of an illegal administrative disposition is a lawsuit seeking the restoration to the original state by excluding the illegal state caused by the illegal disposition, and protective measures against the rights and interests infringed or interfered with the disposition. Thus, there is no benefit in filing a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the disposition if the infringement of rights and interests has been

As can be seen, even if the disposition is intended to claim damages on the ground of illegality, it does not change even if it is intended to claim damages.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Du4369 Decided May 13, 2005). Examining these legal principles in light of the background of the disposition as seen earlier, the Defendant’s implementation of water supply construction works for the instant restaurant to the Plaintiff.