1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 25,392,952 on October 3, 2015 to the Plaintiff and its related expenses.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. (1) On January 12, 201, the Plaintiff, the representative of the Defendant, through an open bid, had the purpose of using the part of the unit and the sub-section of the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), among the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”), KRW 111,00,00 per year, annual usage fees [the successful bidder (excluding interest on value-added tax and installments), but Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act and Article 17 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act], used period from January 17, 201 to January 16, 201, and used period from January 17, 201 to January 16, 2013, the Plaintiff renewed the use fees of the Defendant, the annual user fees of KRW 113,604,80 [the successful bidder] from January 9, 2013 to Article 217 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act and Article 1617 of the State Property Act

B. From January 8, 2015 through a new open bid, the Plaintiff granted C permission for the use of the instant real estate from January 17, 2015 to January 16, 2017.

C. Meanwhile, during the permitted period of use as seen earlier, the Defendant sold traditional beverages, etc. in the instant real estate, and participated in the said new open bid. The Plaintiff asserted that the permission to use the instant real estate was null and void, and demanded retenders, and continued to operate the said real estate on October 2, 2015, and delivered the said real estate to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff occupied and used the instant real estate from January 17, 2015 to October 2, 2015, rather than the Defendant’s permission period, to the Defendant.