2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3...

From January 1, 201 to December 31, 2015, the Defendant imposed KRW 28,900,200 on the Plaintiff on November 4, 2015, pursuant to Article 72 of the State Property Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied 90 square meters of the 154 square meters (60 square meters of the road, 20 square meters of the road, 20 square meters of the parking lot, 10 square meters of the commercial site, and 10 square meters of the instant land, which are owned by the Defendant, from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On October 31, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling on June 23, 2017 that “the part of the instant disposition from November 5, 2015 to December 31, 2015 is invalid.”

【No dispute exists; Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2; Eul evidence Nos. 7 (including Serial No. 1), and the purport of the entire pleading as to the lawfulness of the disposition of this case; 1) The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not possess the land of this case; 2) in order to make a defective administrative disposition as to the lawfulness of the disposition of this case as a whole null and void, the defect is serious violation of laws and regulations, and it must be objectively obvious. In order to determine whether the defect is significant and obvious, it is necessary to consider the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations as a purposeological and reasonably consider the specificity of the specific case itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu4615, Jul. 11, 1995; 94Nu4615, Jul. 11, 1995).

If there is objective reason to believe that certain legal relations or facts which are not subject to an administrative disposition are subject to the disposition, it shall be subject to the disposition.