1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land B and its ground buildings (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s building”).

The Defendant, as an administrative agency entrusted the management of C road 9,938 square meters (hereinafter “instant road”), which is owned by Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the instant road”), confirmed that the Plaintiff’s building violated 14 square meters among the instant road (the lower part of the Plaintiff’s building, the lower part, and the lower part, 9 square meters; hereinafter “A”), and the lower part, “B” of the instant road.

B. First Disposition [Details of Disposition] - Imposition Period: Article 81 of the Public Property Act - Imposition Period: (a) on June 1, 2006 to May 31, 201 (five years) the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a prior notice of the imposition of compensation and restoration to the original state; and (b) issued a disposition imposing indemnity amounting to KRW 21,774,200 of the compensation as follows on June 7, 201. [Reasons] (A) If the part of the instant road falls under the subject of the imposition of compensation under the Public Property Act, the criteria for imposition of compensation should, in principle, be based on the officially assessed individual land price, namely, the publicly assessed individual land price of the instant road; and (c) if it falls under the proviso to the same subparagraph, it should be determined at a price higher than the appraised value by requesting the Plaintiff under the Public Property Appraisal and Appraisal Act to do so.

However, the defendant is not the Enforcement Decree of the Public Property Act but the attached Table 2 of Article 42 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act [the land price is in contact with the road occupation part (excluding road sites).

(3) As the Plaintiff’s land price was calculated by applying the officially assessed individual land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act mutatis mutandis, the said disposition is unlawful.

B. In the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s ground for the disposition that “the above disposition is a disposition imposing indemnity under the Road Act.”