A. From November 27, 2004, the network E died on July 12, 2010 while he arbitrarily occupied and used the instant site for the purpose of owning a commercial building of “G” on the ground of 51 square meters on the land of 555 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) of the Busan Young-do, Busan, Busan, which is owned by the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant site”).

B. After the death of the network E, the Defendant, who is the spouse B, the designated children, the designated children, C, and D succeeded to the network E as a statutory inheritor, and arbitrarily occupied and used the instant site, and sold the said commercial building to H on December 22, 201.

C. Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 26(1)8 of the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Financial Institutions and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation, Article 42(1) of the State Property Act, and Article 38(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiff was delegated by the Republic of Korea to manage and dispose of the instant site and to preserve and collect claims, and the Plaintiff was in charge of the instant site on behalf of the head of Young-do Busan Metropolitan City, which

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence 1, Gap's evidence 3 through Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence 5, Gap's evidence 7, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The State has occupied, used, or profit-making from State property without obtaining permission for the loan, use, or profit-making of State property (hereinafter “unauthorized occupant”).

As to the former State Property Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9401, Jan. 30, 2009; hereinafter the same applies)

An indemnity may be imposed under the State Properties Act and the provisions of the National Tax Collection Act concerning the disposition on default may be applied mutatis mutandis.

However, since the right to impose and collect indemnity under the former State Property Act and the State Property Act differs from the civil right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment, the State is against unauthorized occupant.