행정청이 점용허가를 받지 않고 도로를 점용한 사람에 대하여 도로법에 의한 변상금 부과처분을 하였다.

The administrative agency imposed compensation

 according to the Road Act on those who occupied 

roads without obtaining permission for occupancy.

그러나 처분에 대한 취소소송이 제기되었다.

However, a lawsuit for cancellation was filed against the disposition.

이에 행정청은 처분의 근거 법령을 도로의 소유자가 국가인 부분은 국유재산법으로 변경하여 적용을 주장하였다.

Accordingly, the administrative agency insisted 

that the law on the basis of disposition be 

changed to the state property law for the part where the owner of the road is the state.

아울러 소유자가 서울시 종로구인 부분은 공유재산법으로 변경하여 주장하였다.

In addition, the ownership of Jongno-gu, 

Seoul, was changed to the Public Property Act.

이 사안에서, 대법원은 각 규정이 입법 취지가 다르다고 판단했다.

In this case, the Supreme Court decided 

that each rule had a different legislative purpose.

또한 변상금의 징수목적 등이 다른 점도 지적했다.

It also pointed out that the purpose of collecting reparations is different.

이와 같이 근거 법령을 변경하는 것은 처분의 동일성을 인정할 수 없다고 결론지었다.

It was concluded that changing the underlying

 laws and ordinances in this way could not recognize the identity of the disposition.