1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added a judgment on the additional argument in the court of first instance pursuant to paragraph (2) below, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant road, claiming that the instant road constitutes an urban planning road, is the Defendant’s National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).

(2) According to Article 44(1) of the Building Act, if an applicant for a building permit applies for a new building permit on the premise that it falls under a road requiring the Building Act, the permitting authority shall designate the current state of the road as “road” and Article 45(1)2 of the Building Act provides that the applicant for a building permit applies for a new building permit on the condition that it falls under the current state of the road required by the Building Act. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the indemnity to the Plaintiff as the manager of the road of this case or the person bearing the cost of the road of this case, which is a public structure, even though the road of this case does not fall under the urban planning road or the road under the Road Act and is merely the current state of the road, the Defendant is obligated to pay the indemnity to the Plaintiff even if the road of this case does not fall under the current state of the road of this case.