1. On December 5, 2018, the Defendant respectively revoked the imposition of indemnities of KRW 2,49,900 against each of the Plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs own each 1/2 shares of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C large 92.5 square meters (hereinafter “C land”) and above-ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Pursuant to Article 72(1) of the Road Act, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 2,49,900 on the Plaintiffs on the period from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiffs occupied 6.5 square meters (the part indicated in the attached Form 1, which is the part indicated in the sound management of drawings; hereinafter “instant occupied part”) among 1641 square meters of land of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D road (hereinafter “instant land”), which is the Defendant-owned, without permission, as the site for the instant building.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The occupied portion of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is not an administrative property, and thus is subject to prescriptive acquisition. Since the purchase and acquisition of the instant building and its site, the Plaintiffs occupied the instant occupied portion in belief that it falls under the land purchased and acquired by the Plaintiffs, and the same applies to the Plaintiffs’ former owners, and thus, the prescriptive acquisition for the occupied portion was completed.

Therefore, the disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiffs occupy the occupied part of this case without a legitimate title is unlawful.

B. (1) The plaintiffs alleged that the occupied portion of the instant road is part of the road under the Road Act and that it did not have the form of the road and did not have been designated and publicly announced as the road route on the grounds that the occupied portion is not the administrative property. The defendant asserted that the occupied portion of the instant road does not constitute the road under the Road Act, and therefore, the defendant asserted that the occupied portion of the instant road does not constitute the road under the Road Act.