1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 54 square meters D-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On February 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a loan (hereinafter referred to as “instant application”) with the purport of changing the lease of 34 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land”) out of 149 square meters (hereinafter “land”) in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, the administrative property owned by Sungnam-si, which is the administrative property owned by Sungnam-si, for a vehicle passage to enter the instant land (hereinafter “instant application”).

C. On March 24, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “the land is a water supply site where the water source is buried, and there is no plan for permission for use (loan).”

(hereinafter “Notification of this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. An act of lending a public property under Article 5 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”) ex officio by a public health department, an administrative agency’s lending of a public property under Article 5 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”) is an act of private economy as the subject of a contract under private law with the other party and is an administrative disposition unilaterally conducted regardless of the other party’

(See Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu5281 delivered on May 12, 1995, 98Du7602 delivered on September 22, 1998, etc.). Therefore, the Defendant’s notice of this case is merely an act of refusing the Plaintiff’s offer to the land subject to a loan agreement, which is different by entering into a loan agreement, and cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to a revocation lawsuit, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

Furthermore, as seen earlier, the land is an administrative property among the public property that cannot be leased at source pursuant to Article 19 of the Public Property Act, and its use is possible only after obtaining permission for use pursuant to Article 20 of the Public Property Act. Thus, the application in this case is not applied for the loan.