2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On July 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to connect the road to other facilities (hereinafter “instant application”) to connect the access road to the instant land to the Defendant, Goyang-si, Goyang-si, for the connection of the access road to the instant land (hereinafter “instant application”).

On July 25, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant application to the Plaintiff for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The grounds for disposition are located in the center line (F) connected to E and Seoul. The former part of the G-level intersection is determined by the traffic square (intersection), and as a result, the inquiry is made to the higher department where the Ordinance on Connection between the Road and other facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance”) is corresponding to the intersection prohibition section pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Ordinance on the Prohibition of Connection Permission). As a result, the present application form falls under Article 6(3) of the Ordinance on the Prohibition of Connection of H stations and the transitioned lane, and there is no dispute about the connection prohibition section [the grounds for recognition], Article 6(Prohibition Section 3 of the Ordinance on the Prohibition of Connection, Article 10, 22, and Article 16 of the Ordinance on the Prohibition of Connection with the Road, and Article 6(3) [Attachment 4] of the Ordinance on the Purpose of the entire pleadings and the purport of the disposition of this case cannot be seen as the transition model of the present case.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as it cannot be recognized as the grounds for its disposition.

Even if the application price of this case is changed rapidly, according to Article 11 subparagraph 6 of the Ordinance of this case, it is possible to install a separation zone and connect other facilities.