1. The part concerning the claim for cancellation of the restoration order among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B obtained permission to occupy and use a place for occupation and use from the Defendant as “T, D,” “600 square meters,” and “600 square meters,” and the purpose of occupation and use was “2,215 square meters, e., forest E, e, and 2,089 square meters (F forest and 2,215 square meters prior to the registration conversion; hereinafter “the site for neighborhood living facilities”).

B. On August 13, 2009, the Plaintiff received a report from the Defendant on the succession of the rights and obligations to the permission to occupy and use the road and received the permission for extension of the period of permission extended from November 26, 2012 to December 31, 2015.

C. Meanwhile, in order to create a site for neighborhood living facilities, which are the purpose of occupation and use of permission, the Plaintiff was granted permission for conversion of a site for neighborhood living facilities from a ign market, but on March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff was issued a restoration order following the extinguishment of permission for mountainous district conversion on the ground that the purpose of business was not completed within the publication period of the plan for restoration approved by the

On May 2, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of the permission to occupy and use the road on the ground that the Plaintiff could not fulfill the purpose of occupation and use of the road. On June 17, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of the permission to occupy and use the road and the restoration of the road site in

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine whether the defendant's notification of restoration of the road site of this case to the plaintiff is an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation, ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the part of the claim for revocation of the restoration order of this case.

Article 43 of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12248, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) stipulates that "the period of occupation and use of a road shall expire, or Article 38-2 and 38-2 shall expire.