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 May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to occupy and use the road for the purpose of storing personal goods on the surface of 66 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”) of the surface of the road B (hereinafter “instant road”) in Busan Seo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant application site”) from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2024.

B. On June 5, 2014, the Defendant rendered a non-provisional reply to grant permission to occupy and use the road on the ground that “the instant application is necessary to occupy and use the road facilities periodically at the lower end of the road at the site of the instant application, and it is not possible to grant permission for the purpose of storing personal goods and warehouses, which is not necessary for public interest or public projects,” to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 22, 2014.

On the other hand, at the time of the application for the permission to occupy and use the land of this case, interest payment, prompt building, television, and furniture, which are personal goods owned by the plaintiff, were accumulated.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap's evidence 2, Gap's evidence 3, Eul's evidence 1, Eul's evidence 2, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be deemed to be a road where automobiles pass or pass by people, and thus, it is not directly related to the maintenance of the function of the road, and is not used as a space necessary for controlling facilities to rupture road structures or prevent safety accidents due to a sort of franchis that is not connected with other roads, and the Plaintiff is a resident directly adjacent to the instant application site, and the Plaintiff is using the instant application site. In light of the fact that there is a high benefit in using the instant application site, it is permitted to occupy and use the instant land.