1. The Defendant’s disposition of denying permission to occupy and use road granted to the Plaintiffs on August 6, 2018 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 29, 2017, Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer for each land C, D, and E (hereinafter “instant land”) on September 29, 2017 due to voluntary auction conducted on September 29, 2017. Plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer for the first/2 shares of the instant land on November 7, 2017.

B. On July 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for permission to connect a road to install a house to be constructed on the ground of the instant land with respect to Femination City National Highway G (hereinafter “instant application site”) and other facilities and permission to occupy and use the road (hereinafter “instant application”).

C. On August 6, 2018, the Defendant rejected the instant application against the Plaintiffs for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

As the entry into neighborhood living facilities for which an application for connection permission has been filed is located between a speed road and a multi-level intersection road (the underground passage road) access road, and the conflict between vehicles is anticipated, it is determined as a dangerous section for traffic safety, and the permission for occupation and use of roads and other facilities (the grounds for recognition) is not in dispute pursuant to subparagraph 3 (d) of Article 6 (Prohibition Section for Connection Permission) of the Rules on Connection between Roads and other Facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of this case"), and the purport of the whole pleadings, each statement in subparagraphs 1 through 4 (the number of each branch number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked as it is unlawful as follows.

1) The instant application is intended to establish a house entry route within five households, and thus, Article 6 subparag. 3 of the instant Rule does not apply to the prohibition of permission pursuant to the proviso of Article 6 subparag. 3(d) of the instant Rule. Nevertheless, the instant disposition against which the Plaintiffs’ application was rejected on the ground of Article 6 subparag. 3(d)(b) of the said Rule was in violation of the relevant law. The Plaintiffs