[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff (Attorney Jin-kin, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

December 28, 2010

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of indemnity amounting to KRW 49,306,990 against the Plaintiff on June 30, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From 1972, the Plaintiff was registered as the owner of the second floor building on the ground of Guri-si ( Address 1 omitted), and the said building occupies a part of 85 square meters in the ship, which connects each point of 1,2,3,4, and 5 square meters in the annexed drawing among the area of 4,327 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in Guri-si ( Address 2 omitted), Guri-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On June 30, 2009, the Defendant imposed a total of KRW 49,306,990 on the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied the instant portion without permission, for five years calculated on the basis of the officially assessed individual land price of the land in the Guri-si ( Address 3 omitted), which is the neighboring land ( June 11, 2004 - June 10, 2009) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant real estate is the land owned by Nonparty 1, a third party, and the Republic of Korea is the owner around 1970, and the Republic of Korea grants the Plaintiff’s father Nonparty 2 permission to use the instant part of the instant real estate, and imposed the Plaintiff occupation and use charges until 1989 after completing the registration of preservation of ownership of the instant real estate through the public announcement of stateless real estate in 1980. As long as the instant land is not the name of the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea shall not be deemed the lawful owner, and the instant disposition is unlawful.

(2) In calculating the indemnity for the instant portion, the Defendant calculated the indemnity based on the publicly assessed individual land price of neighboring ditches, although the said part is a ditch, the Defendant calculated the indemnity based on the publicly assessed individual land price of the site located on the national highway ( Address 3 omitted). Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) As to the assertion that Korea is not a legitimate owner of the instant real estate

The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the instant real estate was real estate located in the same area as or divided from the Yang-gun, Yang-gun, Yang-gun, Yang-gun, Yang-gun, Yang-gun, the circumstances of which were considered by Nonparty 1. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Rather, according to each description of evidence Nos. 23-1, 2, and Nos. 1-1 of evidence Nos. 23, 2006, the real estate of this case was divided into a ditch of 1,091 square meters from the real estate of this case before the division, and the land of this case was divided into a ditch of 5,091 square meters from the real estate of this case on Oct. 2, 2006, the government of Jeon-gun, Yang-gun, Yang-gun, Yang-gun, Yang-gun, Lee, and 688 square meters from the land of this case. According to the above facts of recognition, it is difficult to view that the previous size of the instant real estate was either identical or similar to the Plaintiff’s land of this case.

(2) As to the assertion that the calculation of indemnity based on the neighboring site is unlawful

Article 10(1) of the former Public Waters Management Act (amended by Act No. 10272, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that the management agency shall collect indemnities from persons who occupy and use the public waters without permission for occupancy and use, and the amount equivalent to 120/100 of the occupancy and use fees as prescribed by Presidential Decree. According to the delegation of the above Act, Article 13(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Management Act provides that where a building is newly constructed on a ditch which is a public waters and occupies the public waters as a site for a building, it shall calculate occupancy and use fees based on the “price of land adjacent to the public waters”. Meanwhile, Article 13(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Management Act provides that “price of land adjacent to the public waters” refers to the price of land adjacent to the public waters, and where there is no land adjacent to the public waters, the price of land adjacent to the public waters is the price of land adjacent to the public waters.

According to the above relevant laws and regulations, the instant disposition, which was calculated on the basis of the price of the site in the Gui-si ( Address 3 omitted), Gui-si ( Address 3 omitted), abutting on the above issues, shall be deemed lawful (as the Plaintiff is also the Plaintiff, the key part of the instant case was made up of the site from the time when the Plaintiff commenced occupation, and is currently being used as a site for the building at Gui-si ( Address 3 omitted) which is the neighboring land. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is groundless.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

【Attached-Related Acts and subordinate statutes and drawings omitted】

Judges Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Lee Ho-hoon;