1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 925,00 of indemnity against the Plaintiff on June 17, 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 14, 1981, the Plaintiff purchased the title of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B site (hereinafter the instant site) and its ground and the apap assessment sapap 9 square meters (hereinafter the instant building) and owns it up to the present day. Of the instant building, 9.9 square meters of the instant building are located on the Seoul Jongno-gu C road (hereinafter the instant road) owned by the Republic of Korea.

B. On April 22, 1941, the Republic of Korea completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name with respect to the instant road, and registered it as administrative property on the registry of State property, but did not designate the instant road as “road” under the relevant statutes, such as the Road Act, or determined to use it for public purposes by an administrative disposition.

C. On June 17, 2014, the Defendant, as the managing authority of the instant land, issued a disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 925,000 for the period from June 16, 2009 to June 15, 2014 (hereinafter the instant disposition) on the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant building occupied the instant part of the instant road without permission for the occupation and use of the said 9.9 square meters (hereinafter “the instant part”).

On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Republic of Korea to file a claim for ownership transfer registration on the part of the instant crime (Seoul Central District Court 2014Kadan180829). On October 27, 2015, the said court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on October 27, 2015, and the Republic of Korea appeal is currently pending in the appellate court (Seoul Central District Court 2015Na64826).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, substantial facts in this court, Gap 1 through 10 (including each number), Eul 26, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a general property subject to prescriptive acquisition. The Plaintiff occupied the part of the instant crime for 20 years in peace and public performance after purchasing the building of this case on May 14, 1981, and acquired by prescription the part of the instant crime committed on May 15, 2001.

Therefore, the plaintiff is therefore the plaintiff.