1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant’s indemnity against the Plaintiff on December 2, 2010, 556.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Under the provisions of the Daegu Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Affairs, the Plaintiff is a person delegated by Daegu Metropolitan City with construction works of roads and maintenance and management of roads, and the Defendant is a corporation established on December 31, 2003 under the Framework Act on Railroad Industry Development and the Korea Rail Network Authority Act for the purpose of contributing to the enhancement of citizens’ convenience in transportation and the sound development of the national economy by efficiently constructing and managing railroad facilities and performing other projects related thereto.

B. On September 1, 2009, the Defendant: (a) filed an appeal against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2009, on the ground that the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the Plaintiff on the part of the land of 1332-3 and 6,279 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the entire land of this case”; and (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not file an appeal against the determination of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission pursuant to Article 781 of the State Property Act on the ground that the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not use the entire land of this case, other than the instant land, and that the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the said land of 1605 square meters, excluding the instant land of this case; and (c) the Plaintiff’s appeal against the said determination of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission under Article 281 of the State Property Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was exempt from the adjudication on the claim of this case).

Accordingly, on December 2, 2010, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing KRW 556,722,540 to the Plaintiff by applying the usage fee rate of 50/100 after withdrawing the property value of the entire land of this case according to the ruling of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 2 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff.