1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, without obtaining permission to occupy and use a road, installed a retaining wall and occupied it on 151 square meters among 220 square meters among 151 square meters, C road 426 square meters, and D road 1,185 square meters among 1,185 square meters (hereinafter “instant road”).

B. On December 26, 2012, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing KRW 89,35,000 of indemnity for five years to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 94 of the Road Act.

(Provided, That the amount of compensation is determined as the amount equivalent to road occupation and use fees). [Grounds for recognition] The absence of dispute, Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's scheduled location for new construction of driving schools infringed on the road site on October 10, 1995, and the construction permission was granted to the plaintiff on October 10, 1995. In the course of performing road confirmation construction work on June 6, 1998, the plaintiff discovered errors in the above construction permit, and completed removal and restoration of the emotional and fence at the defendant's expense (hereinafter "construction work of this case").

Then, the plaintiff trusted that the site of a private teaching institute does not interfere with the road, and the defendant occupied the road of this case. The defendant made the disposition of this case against the project of this case, which is the name of the public opinion list, and the above disposition shall be revoked as it is unlawful in violation of the principle of trust protection.

B. In general in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of trust protection to the acts of administrative agencies, first, the administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the subject of trust to the individual, second, the administrative agency should not be responsible for the trust of the individual. Third, the individual should have trusted the opinion and conducted any act based on it. Fourth, the administrative agency made a disposition contrary to the above opinion list, thereby trusting that opinion list.