1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 25, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained a license for a liquefied petroleum gas filling business with the following content from the Jeonju market:

The name of the permitted number business entity shall be the location, scope, and type of the subject matter of the name of the business entity, and specifications B C Ap charging station D, E, F, G car container charging 30 tons of the B220 tons of the BP (the underground burial type)

B. On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) connected the Defendant with an access road to the construction site of a general national highway to newly construct dangerous substance storage and treatment facilities at the above location in accordance with the permission for the instant liquefied petroleum gas filling business; and (b) during that process, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to engage in the development of form and quality of land with regard to a road that permits the Defendant to occupy and use the said new construction site of a general national highway No. 17; and (c) to permit the occupation and use of the said site of a 585 square meters outside Jin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jeonjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is owned by the Republic of Korea and Jeonju-si;

At the time of the application of this case, the Plaintiff passed through the site below the application of this case to set up an excellent treatment system by extending the crossing car installed in the same direction.

C. On November 3, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-permission on the instant application to the Plaintiff on the ground that the occupation and use of the road and the reclamation of crossing car is not possible.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

Accordingly, on December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the instant disposition against the Defendant, but the Defendant respondeded to the Plaintiff that permission was not granted on December 12, 2014. On December 24, 2014, the Plaintiff responded again to the Plaintiff that the occupancy and use of the instant site for storing and treating dangerous substances and the reclamation of cross-road rocks is impossible on the instant site for the following reasons.

Since the reclamation of cross-sections in connection with the reclamation of cross-sections requires an alternative facility to maintain the complex functions of cross-sections, the reclamation of cross-sections is to be reviewed, and it is to be possible to use the road such as the Road Act and the road.