1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation of the imposition of indemnity against the Plaintiff on March 6, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 12, 2012, the Defendant: (a) measured B road B 6,393.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant road” on September 19, 2012; (b) and discovered the fact that the Plaintiff occupied a part of the said road without obtaining permission to occupy and use under Article 38 of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12248, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same) without obtaining permission to occupy and use under Article 38 of the same Act.

B. On March 6, 2013, based on Article 94 of the former Road Act, the Defendant imposed an indemnity amounting to KRW 58,078,850 on the Plaintiff from November 1, 2007 to October 31, 2012. On August 20, 2013, the Defendant calculated the land price, which is the basis for calculating indemnity, by applying the average individual land price of KRW 18 square meters and the 11 square meters per E before E, which is adjoining the road of this case. After calculating the land price that is the basis for calculating indemnity, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of indemnity, such as the details of the disposition of imposition in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant first disposition”).

C. On November 28, 2013, the Plaintiff removed part of the building without permission occupying the instant road, and filed an application for a survey of the occupied area to the Defendant. As a result of the survey, the unauthorized occupied area was reduced from 34.6 square meters to 30.3 square meters.

On September 25, 2014, based on Article 94 of the former Road Act, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a disposition of imposition of indemnity, such as the statement of imposition of the attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, 6 through 8, Eul evidence 1, 2, 6, 8 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the First Disposition violates the proviso of Article 94 of the former Road Act, and sought the revocation of the First Disposition.

B. Article 20(1) and (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act is a year from the date of the disposition, etc.