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.

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 adding the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion in the following paragraphs, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

The instant disposition is unlawful on the grounds following the Plaintiff’s assertion of additional determination.

Article 3 of the instant arrangement plan provides that a gas station may not be installed in the section of 3.81 km from the upper parallel to U as the R including the land of this case based on the “Guideline on Designation of Motor Vehicles” stipulating that a new road, other than the existing roads, cannot be connected to the motor vehicle-only roads.

However, this is not effective because there is no basis for a superior law or it is contrary to a superior law.

In addition, the allocation plan of this case is illegal against the validity of the first ruling, and the disposition of this case based on the illegal placement plan is illegal because there is no effect or the defects of the first ruling are succeeded.

Even if the arrangement plan of this case is valid, the section prohibiting the installation of gas stations in the above arrangement plan is not the main road connected to R as part of R, and it is not the main road connected to R, and thus the Plaintiff’s application for registration of gas stations cannot be rejected.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the land of this case is not included in the placement plan of this case after the filing of the lawsuit of this case, but it cannot be the basis for the disposition of this case because it is not specified as the ground for the original disposition.

The statement that a public official belonging to the defendant should establish a plan for the placement of gas stations including R in the first ruling process constitutes a “public opinion statement” and thus, the instant disposition is contrary to the principle of trust protection.

Even if the Defendant permitted the installation of gas stations on the instant land, it does not result in any violation of the public interest, such as smooth flow of vehicles and prevention of traffic accidents, and the Plaintiff’s objection.