1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 45,309,100 of indemnity against the Plaintiff on May 15, 2019 shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a defense acquisition company that operates the D Center (hereinafter "D Center"), and the defendant is a public corporation entrusted with the affairs concerning the management and disposal of 11 parcel (hereinafter "the land of this case") in attached Table 1, located within the D Center site (hereinafter "the site of this case") in Busan Gangseo-gu, Busan (hereinafter "Yansandong").

B. On April 15, 2019, on the ground that the Defendant occupied and used the instant land without permission, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff in advance that an amount equivalent to KRW 45,309,100 should be imposed for the period from May 6, 2014 to May 5, 2019, and provided guidance to conclude a loan agreement for the instant land by setting annual rent as KRW 9,682,180 (including surtax).

C. On May 7, 2019, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant an opinion demanding for the deferment of the period of imposing indemnity until May 31, 2019, as an additional review, such as the prescriptive acquisition of the instant land, is necessary.

On May 15, 2019, the Defendant sent a reply to the purport that “The requirements for collecting indemnity against a person occupying State property without permission are clearly stipulated in Article 72 of the State Property Act, so whether to collect indemnity should be permitted is a binding act that does not permit the disposal agency’s discretion, and thus a request for postponement of the imposition of indemnity is not possible.” On the same day, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the total amount of indemnity KRW 45,309,100 during the period from May 6, 2014 to May 5, 2019 pursuant to Article 72 of the State Property Act and Article 71 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap 1 through 4 evidence (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has been en bloc purchased from the State the instant site that includes the instant land.