1. The Defendant’s disposition imposing road occupation and use fees of KRW 1,146,835,470 against the Plaintiff on November 7, 2014, KRW 970,948,000.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to occupy and use a new road, etc. (hereinafter “instant section”) on the south side of the land C as a project implementer for a new construction project (hereinafter “D”) under construction on the ground of Seoul (hereinafter “C”) and the Defendant permitted the Plaintiff to occupy and use a road on November 6, 2014 with respect to the remaining side of the land C.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant occupancy permit”); 1. The occupancy place is “road (Report) in front of Seoul.”

2. Occupancy area: 7125 square meters;

3. Road access facilities and buildings for the purpose of occupation and use, access roads, parking surface numbers of at least ten pages, and motor vehicle-related facilities;

4. Permission for occupancy and use of the instant occupation and use of KRW 1,042,577,70 (the relevant year’s portion) from October 14, 2014 to December 31, 2016, the occupancy and use period of KRW 104,257,770 (value-added tax)

B. On November 7, 2014, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff the charges for occupancy and use of KRW 1,146,835,470 (including value-added tax) calculated on the basis of 79 days from the occupancy date of November 2014, and the charges for occupancy and use of KRW 5,298,670,520 (including value-added tax) calculated on the basis of 12 months from the occupancy date of March 13, 2015, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as the "each disposition of this case" including the imposition disposition of each of the above charges for the occupation and use of a road. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The occupation and use section of this case is for the sake of the general public’s convenience in traffic, and thus the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to specially use the occupation and use section of this case under the Road Act, so it does not constitute subject to the imposition of occupation and use fees under the Road Act.

B. The Defendant expressed his/her intent to grant permission to the Plaintiff for free occupation and use of the occupation and use of the instant part through the E-Road Construction Convention concluded with the Plaintiff on June 2014 (hereinafter “instant Convention”). As such, each of the instant dispositions goes against the principle of trust protection.