1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing indemnity of KRW 3,241,200, which the Plaintiff rendered on December 6, 2013, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. In accordance with Article 94 of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12248, Jan. 14, 2014) on December 6, 2013, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing KRW 3,241,200 to the Plaintiff as indemnity for the period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, on the ground that the building owned by the Plaintiff was built by 3.7 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “instant road”), among Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B road (hereinafter referred to as the “instant road”).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant road does not constitute a road under the Road Act because it did not go through the procedures, such as designation of routes under the Road Act, and thus, cannot impose indemnity pursuant to the Road Act.

B. Determination 1) A road is a road subject to the Road Act only when it has the form of a road, and is determined and publicly announced as to the designation or approval of a road route and a road zone under the Road Act, or ② Before the enactment of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and the Urban Planning Act and the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (the Urban Redevelopment Act prior to the enactment of the Act), and it cannot be deemed a road subject to the Road Act solely on the basis that it was actually used as a road (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du28106, May 26, 201; 201Du2419, Jun. 27, 2013). The administrative authority must prove that the road was subject to the procedure such as the designation of a road route.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant road has gone through the procedures under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant road is a road under the Road Act.

The instant disposition based on this premise is unlawful.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.