A. The Plaintiffs own each of Plaintiff A3/9, Plaintiff B, C, and D 2/9 shares in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “E”) and above-ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Pursuant to Article 81 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”), the Defendant issued a disposition imposing indemnity on the Plaintiffs on November 23, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) for the period from November 1, 2012 to October 31, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiffs occupied 15.4 square meters (hereinafter “the part of the instant land”) among 523 square meters of F.3 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”), which is the Defendant’s ownership, as indicated in the relevant drawings, without permission, as the part of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion is not an administrative property, and thus is subject to prescriptive acquisition. The deceased G, after purchasing and acquiring the instant building and its site, occupied the part of the instant land that the deceased purchased and acquired. After the deceased’s death, the Plaintiffs who inherited the instant building and its site also succeeded to the instant building and its site. As such, the prescriptive acquisition for the instant part on August 27, 2015, for which 20 years elapsed since the Defendant acquired the ownership of the said part of possession, was completed.

Therefore, the disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiffs occupy the occupied part of this case without a legitimate title is unlawful.

나. 판단 ⑴ 이 사건 점유부분이 시효취득의 대상인지 여부 ㈎ 공유재산법상의 행정재산이란 지방자치단체가 소유하는 재산으로서 직접 공용, 공공용, 또는 기업용으로 사용하거나 사용하기로 결정한 재산과 사용을 목적으로 건설 중인 재산, 그리고...