A. The rest of the Plaintiffs except Plaintiff F and G are the owners of each of the buildings (hereinafter “each of the buildings of this case”) located on each land (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) indicated in the column for “location of the building” in the attached sheet of imposition of indemnity (hereinafter “attached sheet”).

B. In accordance with Article 94 of the Road Act and Article 42 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 81 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”) and Article 4 of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Occupancy and Use Permission and the Collection of Occupancy and Use Fees, the Defendant imposed each indemnity on the plaintiffs on November 11, 2009 on each of the periods stated in the separate sheet in the separate sheet as the owner or manager of each road and ditch in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the roads of this case, etc.”).

(hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1 to 73 evidence, Gap evidence 1 to 75-1 to 4 respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion (1) each of the buildings of this case is not affected by each of the roads of this case, and (2) the plaintiff F and AO-type Council, not G, owns Jongno-gu Seoul AP ground buildings listed in the [Attachment Table 5]. The defendant erroneously imposed indemnity on the above plaintiffs who are not building owners. <3 Even if each of the buildings of this case is affected by each of the buildings of this case, each of the buildings of this case is a road or ditch, and the category of each of the roads of this case is limited to a road or ditch, and there was no public announcement of the designation or approval of a road route or public announcement of a road zone under the Road Act, so it is not a road subject to the Road Act.