1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing indemnity amounting to KRW 11,952,00 on Plaintiff E, F, and G on December 5, 2011 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff E, F, and G are co-owners of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H and I ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building”) and Plaintiff A is the owner of the same Gu J ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building”) and Plaintiff A, B, C, and D are co-owners of the same Gu K ground buildings (hereinafter “instant third building”).

B. The Defendant is the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government L. 360.8 square meters (hereinafter “the first road of this case”) owned by Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and 5.7 square meters (hereinafter “the second road of this case”) of the same Gu M.

3) The road of this case is 23.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant 3 road”) of the same Gu.

(C) The building owned by the plaintiffs is the management agency of the plaintiffs. C. The road of this case is occupied by the defendant as shown in the separate list, and the defendant is the part of the above intrusion (hereinafter referred to as the "land occupied by the plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2, and 3").

The Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”) shall apply to Plaintiffs A, B, C, and D on the ground that they occupy them without permission.

Pursuant to Article 81 of the Road Act, with respect to Plaintiffs E, F, and G, the imposition of each indemnity, as described in the separate sheet, pursuant to Article 94 of the Road Act (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

A. [In the absence of dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1-5, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, the result of the request for measurement and appraisal to the head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Headquarters of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion on the assertion of Plaintiffs E, F, and G is a road in the form of a road, which is subject to the application of the Road Act, with the public announcement of the designation or recognition of a route and the determination of a road zone under the Road Act. The first road in this case is only the category of the road, and there was no public announcement of the designation or recognition of a route and no public announcement of the road zone under the Road Act, and thus, it is not a road under the Road Act.