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 December 19, 2005, the Plaintiff and C filed each application for a building permit for Class 1 neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) on a parcel other than Category 1 neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) with the head of the Si/Ma-si, Chungcheongnam-si and the head of the Si/Ma-si, Chungcheongnam-si (hereinafter referred to as the “Duri”) of the wife population D

B. The “written consent of interested parties” in the road register submitted with respect to the E and two parcels, which the Plaintiff is the owner of the building, is indicated in the “written consent of interested parties” to the effect that the Plaintiff and F agrees to designate the land of 291 square meters among E land, 110 square meters among G land, 164 square meters among H land (hereinafter “instant land”) as a road under Article 35 of the Building Act (date of consent: October 204) and the Plaintiff and F.

In addition, in the letter of consent of the interested parties in the road ledger submitted with respect to E and one parcel other than E in which C is the owner, I has the statement that I agrees to designate 291 square meters of J land as a road (the date of consent: May 2005) and I affix their seals.

C. On December 27, 2005, on the part of the head of Jongno-si, the head of the wife and the Plaintiff and C grants each building permit. D.

On December 28, 2005, Article 2 subparag. 11 (b) of the Building Act and Article 35 (1) of the Building Act were publicly announced and announced as a road by the G-type public announcement of the land of this case and the J land as a road.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff asserted that the disposition in this case is lawful on the grounds of the grounds of the disposition and the relevant laws and regulations, and the plaintiff asserted that the disposition in this case was invalid on the ground that the land in this case owned by the plaintiff was designated and publicly announced as a road without the plaintiff's consent, and that it

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. In the administrative litigation that claims the invalidity of an administrative disposition 1 as a matter of course and seeks the confirmation of invalidity, the plaintiff is responsible to assert and prove the grounds for invalidity of the administrative disposition.