1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff has paid the occupation and use fees that the Defendant imposed every year on the toll road sites located within the area of the Seoul outer circular Highway (YOB) section, which the Defendant manages and operates.

B. In relation to the standards for calculating road occupation and use fees, Article 42(1) [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act prior to the amendment on September 17, 2010 stipulated that “land price shall be the officially assessed land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act,” but the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act amended on September 17, 2010, changed to “the road price shall be the officially assessed land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act (excluding road sites) on the land in contact with the occupation and use of a road.” The Defendant issued a notice from October 30, 2013 to the Plaintiff to additionally pay KRW 22,660,550 on the basis of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Road Act.

C. On February 4, 2014, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 8,741,150 equivalent to the road occupation fees for three years from 2011 to 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, and purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the absence of the obligation to pay road occupation and use fees against the Defendant, the legal relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is a public law right and duty relationship, the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, must bring an appeal suit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of road occupation and use fees imposed by the Defendant. Since the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit after the lapse of 90 days from the date on which the disposition was known, the instant lawsuit is unlawful

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. Determination 1 is based on the premise that the notice of imposition of road occupation fees of this case is not an administrative disposition, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.