2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The plaintiff owns a building of the 4th floor above the ground and the 1st floor below the ground of 2m of square meters in Seoul, ○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, 111.2m, and the 4th floor above the ground (referring to the neighborhood living facilities, retail stores, and office buildings with the total floor area of 76m2, 263, hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case"). The building of this case is adjacent to the small air space - 5 roads (hereinafter referred to as "road of this case"), the route approval of which was published as Gu road on May 1, 199.

B. The Defendant issued the instant disposition, on September 2, 2008, on the ground that the Plaintiff used 10,572,700 won and 4,619,200 won as road compensation for the period from June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008, as the part of the site of the instant road, ○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○ road, 10,300 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “road section of this case”) as the part of the instant road, from among the site of the instant road where the Plaintiff had completed a street creation project without obtaining permission to occupy and use the road.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7 through 10 (including any above numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even if the plaintiff used part of the road of this case for the entry into the building, it constitutes a general use of the road, and cannot be deemed as a special use relationship that is used in a fixed manner by causing a tangible change of the road, and the defendant also did not demand or impose a permit to occupy and use the road for at least seven years under the same premise. The defendant's disposition of this case was against the law regarding the occupation and use of the road or the principle of protection of trust.

(b) Related statutes;

The entry in the attached Form is as specified in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Article 3 of the Road Act provides that a person who intends to build, rebuild, alter, or remove public crops, things, or other facilities within a road zone or who intends to occupy and use a road for other purposes shall obtain permission from the road management agency. Article 94 provides that an amount equivalent to 120/100 of the occupancy fees for the road shall be collected as indemnification for the occupancy and use period of the road if the person occupies and uses the road without such permission. However, the term "the occupancy and use of the road" in each of the above provisions means the so-called special use of the road which is specifically used for the road that is commonly used for the public traffic or for the purpose of using the road in the form of a road, not for exclusive use, but for the purpose of exclusive use of the road, for pedestrian traffic or for the purpose of using the road in the form and use of the road as a whole, but for the purpose of using the road in the form and use of the road as a parking lot for pedestrians, it can be seen that such special use of the road belongs to the road.

(2) Considering the overall purport of arguments and arguments as to the above evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 6, the building of this case is a neighborhood living facility or office building on the 1st underground floor that was newly constructed around July 1992, and the site area of this case is narrow to the extent that one vehicle can be parked within the building area, and the parking lot is not provided separately, but the building owner used a large parking lot for the convenience of the building owner. On the other hand, the building owner's access to the road of this case was not installed at the time of construction of the road or the road of this case, but at the time of construction of the road of this case, the building of this case was installed at the end of the road of this case without any distinction between the sidewalk and the road of this case and the road of this case.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is specially using the instant road portion is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining arguments of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

/ The Road Act

Article 40 (Occupation and Use of Roads)

Article 38 (Occupation and Use of Roads)

(1) Any person who intends to build, rebuild, alter, or remove structures, articles, or other facilities in a road zone, or occupy and use roads for the purpose of outing them, shall obtain permission from the relevant road management agency.

Article 41 (Collection of Occupancy Charges)

(1) A road management agency may collect occupation and use fees from an occupation-user of a road under Article 38.

(2) Matters necessary for the collection of occupation and use fees, such as standards for calculation of occupation and use fees under paragraph (1) (excluding national highways to which Article 20 (2) applies) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree, and other roads by ordinance of the local government to which the road management agency belongs, within the extent prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 42 (Restrictions on Collection of Occupancy Charges)

If the occupancy and use of a road under Article 38 falls under any of the following subparagraphs, occupation and use fees under Article 41 may be reduced or exempted, as prescribed by Presidential Decree:

4. Where a passage to and from a house is used for nonprofit purposes.

Article 94 (Collection of Compensation)

With respect to any person who has occupied and used any road without obtaining permission for occupation and use of the road under Article 38, an amount equivalent to 120/100 of the occupation and use fees for the occupation and use period may be collected as compensation. In such cases, the method of collection shall be in the same manner as the collection of road occupation

Enforcement Decree of the Road Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21234, Dec. 31, 2008)

Article 26-2 (Standards for Calculation of Occupancy Charges)

(1) The occupation and use fees under Article 43 (2) of the Act shall be computed according to the standards in the attached Table 2.

(2) The standards for calculating occupancy and use fees of local governments under Article 43 (2) of the Act shall be the calculation standards of attached Table 2.

The Municipal Ordinance of the local government concerned shall be determined within the limit of this Act.

Article 26-5 (Reduction and Exemption of Occupancy Charges)

(3) The reduction or exemption of fees for occupation and use as prescribed in Article 44 of the Act (Article 42 of the Road Act) shall be as prescribed in the following subparagraphs: