1. On December 11, 2015, the Defendant’s instruction to remove or correct a fence against the Plaintiff is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 30, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the building of 55 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “point land”) owned by Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the key land and the key building on October 17, 2014.

On the other hand, the land at issue and the neighboring land are located as follows (as of September 1, 2015).

B. On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff installed a fence in the form of one-person on the part of 15.1 square meters (the part on the upper status of the land; hereinafter “instant current status”) among the key land as follows to prevent the owner of the neighboring land from passing through the pertinent land by using the vehicle.

C. On December 11, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with a fence installed by the Plaintiff with a view to interfering with traffic from the owners of nearby land. On December 11, 2015, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to remove the fence by December 28, 2015, pursuant to Articles 47 and 79(1) of the Building Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on December 29, 2015, but the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application on May 30, 2016 on the ground that “The current status of the instant case appears to have been used as the passage of residents as a de facto road with a width of at least four meters from February 1, 1975, and it constitutes a road under the Building Act deemed particularly necessary by the head of a Si/Gun based on construction-related documents, etc.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 20, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 9, and 10, video (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The current status of the Plaintiff 1’s assertion by the parties is a road less than 4m wide, and the head of Si/Gun did not publicly notify, designate, and recognize the current status of the instant road as a road. The current status of the instant road is under the Building Act.