A. The Plaintiff occupies the State-owned land B and seven parcels (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The instant land is located within the rearrangement zone of the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project in the Zone C, and the head of the Busan Metropolitan City’s annual government authorized the implementation of the said Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project to the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Association, a project implementer, on December 19, 2008.

C. On the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant land without permission from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010, the head of the Busan Metropolitan City annual government imposed on the Plaintiff KRW 1,178,390 of indemnity for occupied portion in the year 2009, and KRW 1,029,600 of indemnity for occupied portion in the year 2010 on June 201, and KRW 1,029,60 of indemnity for occupied portion in the year 2010, respectively. The Plaintiff received the written notice around that time.

On December 28, 2011, the Defendant transferred the right to manage the instant land to the head of the Busan Metropolitan Government’s annual head of the Gu, and imposed KRW 1,029,590 on the Plaintiff on July 30, 2012, KRW 3,313,390 on the indemnity for occupied portion in the year of 2011, KRW 1,029,590, and KRW 90 on the Plaintiff. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23572, Feb. 9, 2015>

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Of the instant lawsuit, whether the part concerning the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing indemnity for possession in 2009 or 2011 is legitimate, the Defendant’s defense that the part concerning the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing indemnity for possession in 2009 or 2011 among the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed with the lapse of the filing period.

The revocation suit must be filed within 90 days from the date on which the disposition became known (Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act), and the Plaintiff received the notice of imposition of indemnity for possession in 2009 and 2010, respectively, around June 2010 and around June 201, respectively, and there is no dispute over the receipt of the notice of imposition of indemnity for possession in 201. < Amended by Act No. 11483, Jul. 30, 2012>

However, the lawsuit of this case far exceeds 90 days thereafter.