1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Since 1987, C, a representative of the Plaintiff, installed containers, etc. on the Gangnam-gu Seoul road (hereinafter “instant road”) and occupied and used the road.

B. On September 27, 2012, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff a disposition imposing indemnity with respect to the occupation and use of the instant road, as follows:

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). Compensation for the occupation and use period of the area of occupying and using the land located in the occupation and use of the instant land (hereinafter “instant disposition”). From September 2007 to August 167, 2012, 492,000

C. On December 24, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on November 25, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 13, Gap evidence 13, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. A summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) A built a facility on the instant road. The Plaintiff is a sponsor of C and is neither a member nor a representative of C. Since the Plaintiff did not reside in the instant road container, etc., the Plaintiff does not have occupied and used the instant road, and there is no facility installed therein. 2) It is unlawful to impose indemnity for occupation and use of the road on C, which actually occupied and used the road, or impose on the Plaintiff the full amount of indemnity on each of the members that should not be imposed according to the actual occupation and use period.

3) The road actually occupied by C is not less than 800 square meters, but not more than 430 square meters, and the remainder was occupied by D, etc. who left C. In the administrative litigation as to whether the Plaintiff occupied and used the road of this case, even if not subject to detention for the fact-finding in the criminal trial, the criminal judgment already finalized on the same factual basis is a flexible evidence in the administrative trial, and the above criminal judgment is dismissed unless there are special circumstances that it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the criminal trial.