1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was an owner of 2209 square meters in aggregate of 1036 square meters and 1173 square meters in Yongsan-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit with the Seoyang-do, Gyeonggi-do, for the purpose of rebuilding the above gas station around February 2, 2013 while operating the gas station on the instant land from 1993.

B. Meanwhile, the road of this case is owned by the State, and its use and character are agricultural production infrastructure in the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, and the land of this case adjoins the road of this case between the ditches of this case.

The defendant manages the roads and ditches of this case which are entrusted by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

C. In order to permit the construction of the above station, the Yangyang Mayor requested the Defendant to consult with the Defendant, and the Defendant sent a reply to the purport that the use of the road of this case is used for the purpose other than the purpose of agricultural infrastructure, and should be used through the use contract (approval) for the purpose other than the original purpose.

On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the purport that, with respect to the land in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan-si, Seoul-si, the land of this case, 465 square meters among the instant road, and 255 square meters among the ditches of this case, shall be used for three years, and shall be paid KRW 14,256,00 as a usage fee. On May 27, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the purport that, with respect to the land in this case, the land in this case shall be used for three years, and KRW 29,250,530 shall be paid as a usage fee.

(hereinafter “each of the instant lease agreements”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserted that the road of this case is an access road to the land of this case and used the ditch of this case, not the road of this case, and the road of this case is an automobile.