The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Determination on the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is the owner of the land indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”).

2) The Defendant issued a permit for occupation and use (hereinafter “the instant permit for occupation and use”) with respect to the portion of 31 square meters (A), which connects each point of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the instant land, and did not pay the Plaintiff the usage fee when collecting the occupation and use fee (hereinafter “the instant permit for occupation and use”), and used it without any legal ground.

3) The instant occupation permit part violates the condition of the instant occupation permit that permission may be revoked if the construction is not commenced within one year from the date of obtaining permission to occupy and use a road.

In addition, if the defendant issued permission to occupy and use the land of this case without any function as a road, administrative illegality may be held, which can be seen as deviating from the scope of discretionary act.

4) Therefore, the Defendant should revoke the instant occupation permit, and deliver the Plaintiff the instant occupation permit part.

B. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including numbers with numbers), and the whole purport of oral argument, the defendant granted to Eul Co., Ltd. the permission for occupation and use of this case as of February 14, 2004 to December 31, 2013 regarding the part regarding the permission for occupation and use of this case among the land of this case, which is owned by the plaintiff, from February 14, 2004 to December 31, 2013; thereafter, the person entitled to the permission for occupation and use of this case has been changed to D; the period of permission has been changed to February 14, 2004 to December 31, 2026; according to the above facts of recognition, the permission for occupation and use of this case is valid; according to the above facts of recognition, the possessor of this case shall be deemed D; and otherwise, the permission for occupation