The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Based on its adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the instant disposition, which rejected the Plaintiff’s application for permission to occupy and use a road (connection) on the 744 square meters of the instant road, was lawful, based on the following: (a) the instant road section constitutes “section for which the connection permission is prohibited because it is impossible or is likely to cause danger to residents’ passage due to the installation of a map, and thus, it constitutes “section for which the relocation or relocation is prohibited” as prescribed by Article 6 subparag. 6 of the Rules on Connection with other roads (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the loss of function and the link prohibition section as alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.