1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and D share 1/2 of their respective shares in Suwon-si E-gu, Suwon-si (hereinafter “E land”). The Plaintiff and D co-ownership of one half of the shares, and the Defendant owned and managed the land as entrusted from July 3, 2006 to the State.

B. On November 4, 2014, the Defendant: (a) rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff, pursuant to Article 72 of the State Property Act and Article 71 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, imposing a total of 38,583,730 won of indemnity (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used 88 square meters (hereinafter “instant dispute land”) out of the said B’s land, which is a State-owned land from January 1, 2010 to October 30, 2014 (hereinafter “the period subject to imposition of the instant disposition”); (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the said land without a loan agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3; Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful, since he did not occupy or use the land of this case without permission, such as removing hacks, which was installed as part of the land of this case around November 2008 by the lessee of the building of this case on the land of this case, the fence in the land of this case was installed prior to acquiring the co-ownership of the land of this case, and that he did not occupy or use the land of this case during the period subject to the disposition of this case, considering the shape and location of the land of this case and E, the shape of the wall, the shape of the wall, and the previous use relation of the land of this case, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff occupied or used the land of this case for convenience of E regardless of the installation, removal, etc. of fences or hacks.

(b) The main sentence of Article 72(1) of the State Property Act provides that "the head of a central government agency, etc. shall grant a fee to a person occupying the property without permission, as prescribed by Presidential Decree."