1. On July 11, 2016, the Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 136,120,950 of the indemnity against each of the Plaintiffs shall be revoked.

2...

Details of the disposition

On December 7, 2006, the Plaintiffs acquired D & 132.2 square meters (hereinafter “instant building site”) and above-ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building site”) from Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Cdong”) (hereinafter “Cdong”).

From July 11, 201 to July 10, 2016, the Defendant imposed KRW 136,120,950, respectively on the Plaintiffs, on July 11, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiffs occupied 63 square meters (hereinafter “instant road”) of E. 523 square meters of roads owned by Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant road”) as the site for the instant building without permission, pursuant to Article 72 of the Road Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on September 26, 2016, but was dismissed on November 28, 2016.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including Serial Nos. 1 and 3) and the overall purport of the argument of this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to the issue of this case, the issue of this case does not constitute administrative property, which is a road constructed through the procedures prescribed by relevant laws and regulations, such as the Road Act. 2) The defendant’s area, which is the premise of the disposition of this case, was mistakenly calculated

3) The plaintiffs occupied the issue of this case without any intention or negligence. As such, the defendant must collect the amount equivalent to the occupation and use fees from the date one month has elapsed since it notified the plaintiffs of the fact of unauthorized occupation and use pursuant to the proviso of Article 72 (2) of the Road Act. First of all, we examine whether the road of this case constitutes a road under the Road Act.

In particular, roads are in the form of roads and are designated as routes under the Road Act.