The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 32(1)3 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 7392, Mar. 18, 2005; hereinafter “former Act”) provides that when a project implementer obtains authorization to implement a project, permission to occupy and use a road under Article 40 of the Road Act shall be deemed to have been granted. Article 32(5) of the same Act provides that “Where permission, etc. under other Acts is deemed to have been granted for a rearrangement project under paragraphs (1) and (2), the fees, etc. to be imposed for the relevant authorization, permission, etc. shall be exempted pursuant to the relevant Acts

Article 43(1) of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter “former Road Act”) provides that a road management agency may collect occupation and use fees from a person who occupies and uses a road under Article 40, and Article 20 of the same Act provides that an administrative agency that recognized routes may abolish or alter all or part of the routes recognized by it.

Administrative property under the former Local Finance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7663 of Aug. 4, 2005) refers to a public property owned by a local government that is directly used or determined to be used for public, public, or corporate purposes (Article 72). Among them, property for artificial purposes, such as a road or park, is an administrative property if it is designated by a statute or determined to be used for public purposes or if it is actually used as administrative disposition, or if it is actually used as administrative property. The former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 19226 of Dec. 30, 2005) is a public property such as a road, river, bank, ditch, etc.