1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On September 8, 2017, the Defendant’s rejection of the application for the disuse of a road against the Plaintiffs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court on this part is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant indicated that "the road of this case is a road under the Building Act which serves as the premise for a building permit in neighboring areas." Therefore, even if the road of this case is a road under Article 2 (1) 11 (b) of the Building Act or is not so, its category becomes a road and becomes the premise for a building permit. Thus, Article 45 (2) of the Building Act shall apply to the owner's request for disuse of the road. Nevertheless, the defendant did not review the validity of the plaintiffs' request for disuse pursuant to the above provision, and issued the disposition of this case on the ground that the road of this case is not a road under Article 2 (1) 11 (b) of the Building Act, but a road of this case is not a road under Article 2 (1) 11 (b) of the Building Act, and it was unlawful since the defendant did not submit any supporting material.

Since this violates the principle of trust protection, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 10 and Eul evidence Nos. 11 and 11-13-2, the road of this case is connected to seven parcels of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, G, H, I, J, K, K, and L, and the owner of each land above I, J, K, K, and L constructed a detached house with each construction permit granted on March 28, 1973.