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 September 11, 2004, the Plaintiff purchased a B large 66 square meters, a C large 30 square meters, and a multi-story housing of 42.78 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 12, 2004.

However, the Plaintiff, adjacent to the above land C, has used 38 square meters among the 105 square meters of the Seoul Northern-gu D road (hereinafter “instant road”), which is the Defendant’s ownership, as the instant building site.

B. On February 24, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 7,596,900 as indemnity (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 72 of the Road Act on the ground that the Plaintiff without obtaining permission to occupy and use the road of this case, 38 square meters, among the instant roads, occupied and used as the site of the instant building without permission (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Based on Recognition] In without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 4-1, 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6-1, 7-1, 2, 7-3, and Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant building was approved by the Defendant.

Although the officially assessed individual land price of the instant road possessed by the Plaintiff was KRW 485,100 per square meter, the Defendant calculated the indemnity by applying the officially assessed individual land price of the land in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

In addition, although the defendant used the road of this case as the site of the building on the wind that the plaintiff occupies the above land without permission as the current state, the defendant, who did not know about the violation of the road of this case, without any justifiable reason, imposed indemnity by applying the additional rate to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Relevant statutes [Road] Article 66 (Collection, etc. of Occupancy Charges) (1) A road management authority may collect occupancy charges from a person who occupies and uses a road with permission to occupy and use the road;

(3) A road management authority shall take measures under paragraph (1).