1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 29, 2015, the Plaintiff owned a 306 square meters of B miscellaneous land (hereinafter “instant land”). However, on the instant land, etc., the Plaintiff made a ruling of expropriation for the D business that created a parking lot adjacent to the C market on June 29, 2015, and on August 13, 2015, the ownership was transferred to Gunpo-si.

B. However, as the Plaintiff continued to occupy and use the instant land even after the transfer of ownership, and did not transfer the land, the Kunpo-si filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for land transfer under the court 2015Gahap103918, and the said court rendered a ruling to the effect that the Plaintiff should transfer the instant land to the Kunpo-si by March 15, 2016.

C. On May 3, 2016, the Defendant, upon delivery of the instant land, issued prior notice to the Plaintiff on the imposition of indemnity for illegal possession of the trial property, and on May 17, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing KRW 15,497,240 of the indemnity for the Plaintiff’s illegal possession of the instant land from August 13, 2015 to March 15, 2016.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on July 8, 2016, but was dismissed on August 31, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence No. 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation on June 29, 2015 with respect to the adjudication on expropriation of June 23, 2015 and filed an objection to the administrative litigation under the jurisdiction of 2015Guhap71908, Dec. 23, 2015, which had continued the lawsuit at the time of the instant disposition, and the decision of recommending settlement to deliver the land to the Gunpo City by March 15, 2016, became final and conclusive as it is in the said lawsuit against the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s obligation to deliver the land of this case was postponed until March 15, 2016, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff occupied the land of this case without permission during the said period.