1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who received donation from C on January 23, 2015, from the former owner of an unauthorized building located on the land of 88.2 square meters in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On March 30, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 828,820 on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 81 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building, who was an owner of the instant part of the D road owned by Songpa-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) occupied the said part of the crime (hereinafter “the instant part of possession”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 12, 13, 14, 21, and 22 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the following grounds as it is unlawful.

(1) On February 2, 2012, the Defendant imposed indemnity under the Road Act on C, and C filed a revocation suit (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan17882) with this court and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on July 18, 2013. Upon the recommendation of mediation in the appellate court, the Defendant revoked the disposition of indemnity ex officio and withdrawn C’s lawsuit, and the Defendant imposed indemnity under the Public Property Act on the Plaintiff at another time, which violates the principle of res judicata.

(2) Despite the fact that the instant land was connected to the instant building as well as to other houses adjacent to the instant building, imposing indemnity only for the instant building owned by the Plaintiff is in violation of the principle of equality.

In addition, even though C acquired the ownership of the building of this case on May 18, 1998, the Defendant did not point out that the building of this case was occupied without permission or imposed indemnity, and the Plaintiff’s parking control on October 4, 201.