1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The fact that the Plaintiff owned a house located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Defendant, on May 16, 2013, issued a disposition imposing indemnity amounting to KRW 2,033,010 for the period from July 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the said house owned by the Defendant occupied a house of seven square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Defendant on May 16, 2013 is either a dispute between the parties concerned or acknowledged by the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that around 2002, the Plaintiff consented by the Defendant to install a new fence after the Defendant’s building and maintaining a fire-fighting road, and did not know that the fence installed by the Defendant was on the instant land. The instant disposition that was made on the ground that the Plaintiff’s wall was installed on the instant land after 10 years was unlawful and invalid as it goes against the principle of trust protection.

B. The judgment of the court below does not have any evidence to view that the Defendant: (a) caused the Plaintiff to occupy and use the pertinent land by installing a new wall on the instant land; and (b) even if an administrative agency imposes indemnity after leaving the State-owned or public property for a long time, it cannot be said that the disposition imposing indemnity goes against the procedural justice and trust principles; or (c) the occupant’s right to use and profit from the indemnity is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu17278, Mar. 10, 200). Thus, the Plaintiff’s legal status to justify the Plaintiff’s occupation, use and profit-making prior to the instant disposition cannot be acknowledged.

In addition, the imposition of indemnity is a binding act in which the discretion of the disposition agency is not allowed, and is imposed without asking the possessor’s intentional or negligent negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du10193, Feb. 26, 2002). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s permission for use or profit-making or loan contract.