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 14, 2007, the Plaintiff sold the instant land and the instant housing to C on June 25, 2015, as a person who acquired the ownership of 40.6m2 (the instant housing shall be limited to the instant site in the following below) and of cement brick structure and ground brick structure, cement structure, 40.6m2 (the instant housing shall be limited to the instant housing), and on June 25, 2015.

B. On December 29, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of KRW 1,172,90 for indemnity against unauthorized occupation and use of the road during the period from November 1, 2010 to May 31, 2015, on the ground that the instant housing was invaded by six square meters among the instant roads, as the road management authority located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the instant road in this case) and located within 2,275 square meters.

C. On January 26, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,172,900 of indemnity.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) was the building newly constructed on the ground of the instant site on October 17, 1985, and there was no way to verify whether the instant house was invaded with the instant road on the cadastral record. The Plaintiff did not transfer to E the fact that the Plaintiff, when purchasing the instant house and site from E, was invaded with the road, and the Defendant also did not raise a problem prior to the imposition of the instant indemnity in relation to the instant road erosion.

In this situation, there is no obligation to conduct a cadastral survey to verify whether the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant housing has invaded the road. However, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate only after being notified of the occupation and use of the instant housing under Article 72(2) of the Road Act. The instant disposition that calculated indemnity retroactively from November 1, 2010 is unlawful.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff’s negligence existed, the Defendant.