1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is set forth in Article 2-D.

Inasmuch as 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, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

D. Article 65(2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017) provides that “The maintenance infrastructure newly installed by a project implementer, other than the head of a Si/Gun/Gu or a housing project, by implementing a rearrangement project shall gratuitously vest in the State or a local government to manage such infrastructure, and the maintenance infrastructure owned by the State or a local government, the use of which is ceased as a result of the implementation of a rearrangement project, shall be gratuitously transferred to the project implementer to the extent equivalent to the installation cost of the newly installed maintenance infrastructure (hereinafter referred to as “former provision”), while the latter part of the latter part shall be “the latter part

A. This means that the fundamental infrastructure newly installed by a private project operator is naturally reverted to the State or a local government without compensation pursuant to the former part of this case, thereby uniformly reverted the ownership along with the management right to the State, etc. for securing public facilities and for the efficient maintenance and management thereof. In order to compensate the project operator’s property losses within the reasonable scope, it shall compel the project operator to gratuitously transfer the fundamental infrastructure whose use is abolished within the extent equivalent to the installation cost of the fundamental infrastructure newly installed pursuant to the latter part of this case.

Therefore, the project implementer is entitled to acquire the fundamental infrastructure that is disused under the latter part of this case from the State, etc. without compensation, and it is against it.