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 October 15, 197, the Plaintiff purchased a building B large scale 231 square meters and its ground (hereinafter respectively referred to as “instant land” and “instant building”) in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and owns it until now after completing the registration of ownership transfer on the 19th day of the same month.

B. The instant land is adjacent to 128 square meters among the 13,883 square meters in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Park (hereinafter “instant park site”).

The instant park site is designated as a "green area" according to the park building plan of the D Park, but the current state is a road packed in asphalt, and the general public, such as the Plaintiff, are freely used.

C. On May 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to occupy and use an urban park pursuant to Article 24(1) of the Act on Urban Parks, Greenbelts, Etc. (hereinafter “Urban Park Act”), but the Defendant returned the application on May 24, 2013.

On October 2014, the Plaintiff applied for permission to occupy and use the instant park site again to the Defendant. However, on October 13, 2014, the Defendant sent the D Park site, which was filed with the Plaintiff on October 13, 2014, that is not subject to permission to occupy and use due to reasons, such as “green” in the park building plan, and

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-6, Gap evidence 7-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 10, 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant park site was merely part of the D Park, and its neighboring residents, including the Plaintiff, are freely using it as a passage, at a location at the outermost of a stone axis, which constitutes a park boundary from the time when the D Park was constructed to the present day.

In addition, the land of this case can not move to the outside without using the site of this case as a franchise, and due to the disposition of this case, the plaintiff is entitled to move to the land of this case.