1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 7,382,148,830 against the Plaintiff on May 12, 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff established and operated the Plaintiff’s school foundation, and the Defendant is a public corporation entrusted with the affairs concerning the management and disposal of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 21,319.40 square meters and D 20.40 square meters (hereinafter each of the above land is referred to as “instant land solely by its lot number,” and the total number is referred to as “instant land”).

B. On April 18, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of KRW 7,381,010,730 of indemnity amounting to the period from May 9, 2007 to May 8, 2012 on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant land without permission, and notified the Plaintiff to conclude a loan agreement on the instant land by setting annual rent as KRW 1,408,426,80.

C. On May 4, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant an opinion that the imposition of indemnity is unfair, as the Plaintiff occupied and used the land without compensation from the Republic of Korea since 1938.

However, on February 27, 192, the Defendant issued a notice of imposition of indemnity on the grounds that the head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the head of Yongsan-gu”) who was the managing authority of the instant land (hereinafter “the head of Yongsan-gu”) withdrawn his/her intent of free use and subsequently rejected the Plaintiff’s opinion on May 10, 2012, on the ground that he/she did not accept the Plaintiff’s opinion, imposed and collected a notice on the Plaintiff on the aggregate of KRW 7,382,148,830 of indemnity based on Article 72 of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 11548, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “State Property Act”) and Article 71

(hereinafter referred to as the “disposition of this case”). [The grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 7 (which include all numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case must be invalidated or revoked on the following grounds.

The defendant who has no authority to impose indemnity shall file a complaint for the following reasons.