1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for this case by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following contents to the 6th judgment of the first instance, which is set forth in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition, the Plaintiff’s act of occupying and using the pertinent land without permission is only subject to Article 72(1) of the Road Act (which applies to the occupation and use of a road (administrative property). Article 32(1) of the State Property Act and Article 29(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act applied at the time of obtaining permission for the use of administrative property.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

[On the other hand, Article 22 (1) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act applicable to the use fees of the land of this case as a road (administrative property) and it is recognized that the land of this case is owned by Busan Metropolitan City. Thus, Article 22 (1) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act applicable to the use fees of the land of this case is to be collected every year according to the rate and calculation method prescribed by Presidential Decree when the head of a local government permits the use or profit-making of administrative property. Article 22 (1) of the above Act applies to the case where the permission for use or profit-making of administrative property of this case is granted. Since Article 22 (1) of the above Act applies to the case where the Plaintiff occupied or used the land of this case without permission, the act of the Plaintiff without permission is not subject to Article 22 (1) of the above Act.