1. As to the Plaintiff:

(a) Disposition imposing indemnity amounting to KRW 26,213,270, Nov. 15, 2010; and

(b) on March 6, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 3, 1992, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of a mentblue building without permission (hereinafter “unauthorized building”) extending over the ground of the land B in Jung-gu in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and the land C in Jung-gu, Seoul, and the land owned by the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “D land before partition”). The Defendant was entrusted with the management of D land before subdivision by the non-party Republic of Korea around that time.

B. On April 15, 2015, D land prior to subdivision was divided into D large 20.3 square meters and 8.5 square meters in Jung-gu, Seoul and Jung-gu, Seoul.

C. On November 15, 2010, the Defendant imposed indemnity of KRW 26,213,270 on the Plaintiff: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the part of 11.7 square meters of the D land for a five-year period from April 15, 2004 to April 14, 2009 as a site for an unauthorized building; and (b) on March 6, 2015, the Defendant imposed indemnity of KRW 22,080,330 on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the entire area of 8.5 square meters of Seoul Jung-gu E-gu, Seoul for five years from March 3, 2010 to March 2, 2015 as an unauthorized building site.

(1) The following facts are as follows: ① A’s disposition to impose indemnity on November 2010; ② a disposition to impose indemnity on March 2015; ② a disposition to impose indemnity on March 1, 2015; ② there exists no dispute; ② A’s statement in the facts of absence of any dispute; ②’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 12; and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including branch numbers); Party A’s video and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;

3. Determination as to the disposition of imposing indemnity in November 2010

A. On the part of the Defendant’s defense of this case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on this part after the lapse of 90 days from the date on which he/she became aware of the disposition imposing indemnity in November 2010. This part of the lawsuit was brought after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit, and is unlawful. 2) According to the main sentence of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a revocation lawsuit is filed within 90 days from the date on which he/she became aware of the disposition, but it is valid to deem that the disposition was known.