1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Guro-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gyeong-dong 44m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) is a general property owned by the Republic of Korea, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on January 26, 1993.

B. Pursuant to Article 32(3) of the former State Property Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9401, Jan. 30, 2009) and Article 33(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21641, Jul. 27, 2009), the head of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant’s representative, was delegated to the office of general administration (the Minister of Finance and Economy or the Minister of Strategy and Finance) for the management and disposal of the instant land

C. The plaintiff was wholly amended by Act No. 9401 on January 30, 2009 of the State Property Act

(a) The same shall apply;

Article 42(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24495, Apr. 5, 2013)

(a) The same shall apply;

(D) The administrative affairs of the instant land have been entrusted by the office of general administration pursuant to Article 38(3). D. The Plaintiff imposed indemnity for the period of occupation from January 29, 2009 to December 31, 2012 on the Defendant for the reason that the Defendant occupied, used, and profit from the instant land without any authority. The Plaintiff imposed indemnity for the period of occupation from February 27, 2007 to December 31, 2012 on four occasions on the ground that the Defendant occupied, used, and profit from, the instant land, which is a State-owned, without any authority. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, and the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion without any title occupied and used the instant land without permission, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount claimed in accordance with the calculation standard of the loan charges for unjust enrichment arising from the occupation and use of the instant land from February 27, 2007 to December 31, 2012, to the Plaintiff entrusted with the business of managing and disposing of the instant land.

3. Determination

(a) Use, profit-making or possession of State property without permission for use or loan contract under the main sentence of Article 72 (1) and subparagraph 9 of Article 2 of the State Property Act;