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 April 20, 1993, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B large 157.7 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and the 6-story building of the ground reinforced concrete structure (hereinafter “instant building”). On May 19, 1994, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 11.9 square meters adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “the instant land 2”).

B. On September 14, 1979, Seoul Metropolitan Government completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D road 249.2 square meters adjacent to the land of this case (hereinafter “instant road”).

C. On August 14, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to impose KRW 36,93,300 on the Plaintiff under Article 94 of the former Road Act for the period of occupation and use from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014 on the ground that the part of the stairs of the instant building was occupied without permission, such as the result of the cadastral survey in attached Form 11.8 square meters among the instant road.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the aforementioned disposition on September 3, 2014. However, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission revoked the disposition imposing indemnity for a period from July 1, 2009 to August 13, 2009 among the instant disposition on December 22, 2014, and rendered a ruling dismissing the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claims.

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists over the original disposition that remains after partial revocation of the judgment; Gap's statements in subparagraphs 1 through 7; Eul's statements in subparagraphs 1 through 5; and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The instant disposition does not contain any explanation on the location and shape of the instant building that intrudes the 11.8 square meters of the instant road among the instant roads, and thus, there is a procedural defect that did not state the grounds for the instant disposition.

(2) Since the Defendant approved the use of the instant building on August 25, 1971, the Defendant should be deemed to have granted implied permission to occupy and use the instant road.

(iii).