1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 5,278,320 of indemnity against the Plaintiff on September 27, 2013 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. On June 26, 200, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to B, 179 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant housing site and housing”). The Defendant, on September 27, 2013, occupied 78 square meters (hereinafter “instant road”) out of 387 square meters in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant road”) from October 1, 2008 to June 30, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied 78 square meters in the old-gu, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant road”) under the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”) on the ground that there is no dispute between the parties, or that the Defendant imposed indemnity of KRW 5,278,320 under the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”) is recognized as being written evidence Nos. 1, 4 (including the serial number, hereinafter the same shall apply), 1, and 8.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff acquired the instant land and housing before acquiring it on May 3, 1984 after acquiring it as it is, and as at the time of the commencement of the possession of D, possession in peace and public performance with the intention to own it for at least 20 years, and as at May 3, 2004, the period of prescription for the acquisition of possession of the instant land has expired, the imposition of indemnity on the premise of this part without permission is unlawful.

(2) The part of the Defendant’s assertion in this case is an administrative property that cannot be the subject of prescriptive acquisition, and it cannot be viewed as an independent possession in light of its size, etc., so the completion of the statute of limitations for possession cannot be asserted.

B. Article 81 of the Public Property Act provides that an amount equivalent to 120/100 of the usage fees or rent of public property or commodity shall be collected from a person who uses, benefits from, or possesses public property or commodity without permission for use or profit-making or loan contract, or from a person who continues to use, benefit from, or occupies public property or commodity without permission for use or profit-making or loan contract after the expiration of the lease contract period.

On the other hand, Article 6 provides that administrative property shall not be subject to prescriptive acquisition.