1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 25, 2005, the Plaintiffs purchased two-story neighborhood living facilities in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, 787§³ and its ground reinforced concrete structure (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed each registration of ownership transfer by Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff C, respectively, with shares of 37/100.

B. On August 31, 2018, the Defendant issued a prior notice to the Plaintiffs on the ground that he/she used the land of 32 square meters and one square meters for a road of 32 square meters in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant road”) as a building, and on December 1, 2018, the Defendant issued a separate disposition to the Plaintiff Company A imposing indemnity of KRW 18,301,80 (the occupied area: the instant road: from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply to Plaintiff B and C) with indemnity of KRW 19,785,60, and KRW 11,376, and KRW 700 for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

C. The Plaintiffs appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and the said commission dismissed all the Plaintiffs’ appeals on July 15, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The building of this case was approved for use on June 29, 1985, and there was no problem on the building ledger at the time when the plaintiffs purchased the building of this case, and there was no fact that the plaintiffs invaded the road of this case from the seller. In addition, in addition to the form where the building of this case was invaded by the road of this case and the area of the road of this case was smaller than the area of the building of this case, the plaintiffs did not have intention or negligence on occupying the road of this case without permission to occupy and use the road of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the road of this case").