1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 4, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased the street selling stand-D (hereinafter “instant street selling stand”) of the size 2.8m x 1.4m (3.92m m m ) located in the report of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant street selling stand”) from October 4, 201 to KRW 25 million.

B. Meanwhile, with respect to the instant street dealer, E, a female student of B prior to the Plaintiff’s purchase as above, obtained permission from the Defendant to occupy and use the road, and the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant for business facilities on the sidewalk.

C. Although E died on June 18, 2013, E’s family members prepared and submitted an application for permission to renew the occupancy and use of a road (facilities) in the name of E around October 2013, and accordingly, the Defendant obtained permission to occupy and use the road from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, and the contract for the use of a road for the same period was concluded again in the name of E.

In addition, on December 5, 2014, E's family members prepared and submitted an application for permission to occupy and use a road under the name of E, and accordingly obtain permission from the defendant from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, and the contract for the loan of a sidewalk business facility was concluded again in the name of E for the same period.

On February 11, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a public letter stating that “The instant street vendor operated by the Plaintiff is in the state of being returned to Seoul Special Metropolitan City, because the contract was revoked due to the death of the original operator E, and thus, the instant street vendor is in the state of being returned to Seoul Special Metropolitan City. Therefore, until February 29, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a public letter stating that it would be dealt with under Article 12 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Management, etc. of Business Facilities on News (hereinafter “the instant Ordinance”) and Article 74 of the Road Act if it would not be restored to the original state until the said period.”

(hereinafter “instant notice”). E.

The plaintiff did not withdraw from the street stand by February 29, 2016, and the defendant demanded again the removal of the street stand-D autonomy on March 15, 2016.