1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 1,639,100 of the indemnity against Plaintiff A on December 5, 2018 and the imposition of KRW 1,639,100 on Plaintiff B on December 17, 2018.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 8, 2008, the Plaintiffs purchased Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government large 90.2 square meters and above ground mentment stones and three-story buildings of reinforced concrete structure (a building area of the underground floor 56.2 square meters, 1, 2 stories, 81.08 square meters, 3 stories, 78.78 square meters, 6.79 square meters of a rooftop, and 6.79 square meters of a rooftop; hereinafter the same shall apply) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership by 1/2 shares.

Although the building of this case was approved on July 28, 1976 and completed registration of preservation of ownership around March 197, 197, some changes in the purpose of use have been made, the building area or outer wall on the building ledger cannot be seen.

B. In accordance with Article 72(1) of the Road Act, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 1,639,100 of the indemnity to the Plaintiff on December 5, 2018 and December 17, 2018 (hereinafter each of the instant dispositions) on the ground that the Plaintiffs occupied the land of the instant building without permission, 7.8 square meters (the part indicated in the attached drawings, hereinafter referred to as “cocks”) among 7.8 square meters of the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Road 2887 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1's 3, Eul 1's 1's 3's 1's 3's 7's , and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion (i.e., the building of this case was invaded on the land of this case and not constructed.

She even if the building of this case has invadedd the land of this case.

Even if the occupied portion of this case is not administrative property, it is subject to prescriptive acquisition. Since the purchase and acquisition of the building of this case and its site, the Plaintiffs occupied the part of this case to be included in the land purchased and acquired by the Plaintiff, and the same applies to the Plaintiffs’ former owners, the prescriptive acquisition for the occupied portion was completed.

Therefore, the disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiffs occupy the occupied part of this case without a legitimate title is unlawful.

(b).