1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased land B and its ground buildings in Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) and operates a restaurant with “C” in the said building.

B. On November 13, 2015, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to reinstate the instant road by voluntarily demolishing the occupied portion of the instant building without permission (hereinafter “the instant illegally occupied portion”) until November 30, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used four square meters of the Seoul Jung-gu D Road (hereinafter “instant road”).

C. On January 19, 2016, the Plaintiff did not voluntarily remove the portion of the instant illegal occupancy until the said date, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to remove the portion of the instant illegal occupancy by February 12, 2016 pursuant to Article 73(2) of the Road Act, and ordered the Plaintiff to execute compulsory removal or to collect expenses if the Plaintiff did not perform it.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on February 5, 2016, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said claim on May 30, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff carried out the repair work of this case due to the deterioration of the building of this case (hereinafter “instant repair work”), and requested the Defendant to specify the part where the instant road was occupied and used without permission at the time of the said construction work, but the Defendant did not comply with the request. Since the portion of this case’s unauthorized occupation is not less than 4 square meters, it does not interfere with the passage of citizens or cause harm to the public.