1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. Around January 17, 1997, the Plaintiff’s attached B obtained permission to occupy and use the road for the purpose of occupation and use of 60 square meters (hereinafter “instant occupation and use land”) out of 1,567 square meters (the area was corrected to 1,864 square meters due to the correction of registered matters on August 20, 201) of Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do. Around January 17, 1997, and the period of occupation and use was “full-out land” as “from January 17, 1997 to December 31, 2006.” The Plaintiff violated B’s right and duty to obtain permission to occupy and use the road on May 21, 2004, or ordered the Defendant to suspend or change the conditions of permission for occupation and use of the road for the purpose of 1,864 square meters (hereinafter “instant occupation and use”). On April 3, 2007, the Defendant applied for permission to occupy and use the road for the purpose of 207.

C. On August 7, 2012, the Defendant revoked the permission of the Plaintiff to occupy and use the road in accordance with Article 83 of the Road Act and the terms and conditions of the permission, on the ground that the Plaintiff obtained the permission by fraudulent or omission of attached documents at the time of filing an application for permission to occupy and use the road.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.