1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 16,133,610 of indemnity against the Plaintiff on January 21, 2015 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established with the main purpose of power generation, power transmission, and power distribution business under the Korea Electric Power Corporation Act. Around December 1982, the Plaintiff installed a steel tower and power transmission line for power transmission in a single unit of 18,686 square meters of the mobile bridge 193-2 forest land and 193-2 forest land and 193-2 forest land and 18,686 square meters (in the following cases, the instant forest and forest land

B. On January 21, 2015, the Defendant occupied the area of 1,917 square meters among the instant forest land by owning and managing the said transmission tower and the transmission line. Among them, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 16,13,610 for the five years from October 8, 2009 to October 7, 2014 pursuant to Article 72 of the State Property Act on the ground that the possession of the area of 1,857 square meters, excluding the area of 60 square meters, for which the Plaintiff obtained prior permission for use and profit-making, constitutes an illegal possession (the instant disposition was conducted under the following).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: ① with the approval of the competent authority as part of the power resource development business, the Plaintiff installed a steel tower and a power cable on a single unit of 193-2 forest land of 18,686 square meters in Ycheon-si, Seocheon-do, the Seoul Metropolitan Government, as part of the government’s electric power resource development business; ② with respect to the size of 60 square meters in the steel site for power transmission, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the competent authority for the use and profit-making of state-owned land from the instant forest; thus, it does not comply with the requirements for imposing indemnity on state-owned land; ② in the case of state-owned property subject to the State Property Act, the State property does not have any provision on the imposition of rent or indemnity in cases where the State occupies the “public space” different from the public property, but the Defendant imposed indemnity for the public space only after the transmission line by analogying the provision on public property, and ③ in the public property and