1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part is as follows, and the corresponding part of the judgment document of the first instance (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited, except for the addition of some contents as follows.

Article 72 of the Road Act shall be added to "based on Article 72 of the Road Act" subsequent to "the grounds" of Part 3.11.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they occupied and used the road of this case without any intention or negligence. The defendant's disposition of this case violates Article 72 (2) of the Road Act, which provides that the defendant shall not collect indemnity from the occupant who has no intention or negligence.

In order to abolish the imposition of indemnity against a person who occupies and uses a road without any intentional negligence, taking into account the legislative intent of Article 94 of the former Road Act and Article 72 of the former Road Act amended on March 22, 2010, which was wholly amended on January 14, 2014, the purpose of Article 9 of the Addenda to the Road Act to ensure rational predictability of occupants, and the proviso to Article 94 of the former Road Act for a person who has no intentional negligence, the former Road Act notified the occupant of the fact of excessive occupancy, etc. before the amended Road Act enters into force.

Even if Article 9 of the Addenda is interpreted simply to exclude the application of Article 72 (2) of the Road Act, it is unfair to apply Article 72 (1) of the Road Act.

In particular, “Notification of Facts of excessive occupancy, etc.” is first introduced under Article 72(2) and (3) of the Road Act, which was wholly amended on January 14, 2014, and thus, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s prior notice was given prior to the enforcement of the amended Road Act to exclude the application of Article 72(2) of the Road Act from “Notification of Excess Occupancy, etc.” for the purpose of imposing indemnity.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. (1) Determination is made before the wholly amended Act No. 12248, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the “Gu”).