1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The plaintiffs are the occupants who reside in the Ilyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City M apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”).

L and four other persons (hereinafter referred to as “L, etc.”) filed an application for permission to occupy and use a road of 18.4 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant road section”) in front of the Nandong-gu, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si, and the Defendant granted permission to occupy and use the instant road to L, etc. on October 28, 2013 for the purpose of occupation and use of the road.

However, the road section of this case was in contact with the access road of this case (hereinafter “the access road of this case”), and the residents of this case filed a civil petition demanding the withdrawal of the permission to occupy and use the relevant apartment on the grounds of the risk of accident, etc.

L et al. filed an application for permission to change the contents of the permission from entry into and exit from the above road to entry into the road for the purpose of occupation and use on April 19, 2017. On April 25, 2017, the Defendant filed an application with L et al. for permission to occupy and use the road of this case for the purpose of occupation and use (multi-household) and for the period of occupation and use from April 25, 2017 to December 31, 2026 (hereinafter “instant permission to occupy and use the road”).

(However, although the first permit to occupy and use the road of this case stated the purpose of occupation and use as "the access road (multi-household housing)", it was corrected as above on October 26, 2017 (based on recognition). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 (including each number number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 4, and the overall purport of the pleading, and the overall purport of the pleading, the defendant's defense of this case suffered any disadvantage due to the permission to occupy and use the road of this case.

Even if there is no direct and specific interest to be protected by the law regarding the cancellation of permission to occupy and use the road of this case to the plaintiffs who are not the direct counterpart to the disposition.