1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is b-2.

(1) Except as delineated below, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

2. Parts in height:

B. (1) The imposition of indemnity pursuant to Article 81(1) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act constitutes a measure to return unjust enrichment against an act of occupying and using public property without any legal cause and to impose sanctions against a violator. The imposition of late payment penalty pursuant to Article 80 of the same Act is a measure to impose sanctions against a person liable to pay indemnity in cases where the person fails to pay the indemnity by the due date. Such sanctions against a violation of administrative laws and regulations are imposed based on the objective fact that it is a violation of administrative laws and regulations in order to achieve administrative purposes. Thus, the imposition of indemnity pursuant to Article 81(1) of the same Act may be imposed even if the violator intentionally or negligently, barring any special circumstance, such as where there is no justifiable reason not to cause

(See Supreme Court Decisions 98Du5972 delivered on May 26, 2000, 2002Du5177 delivered on September 2, 2003, etc.). Special circumstances, such as the existence of justifiable grounds, must be proved by the claimant.

In this case, as to whether there are special reasons, such as the failure to pay indemnity to the plaintiffs, there are justifiable reasons, etc., the following circumstances can be acknowledged by the health care unit, the evidence mentioned above, and evidence No. 8-1 to No. 139, i.e., the plaintiffs occupied, used, and used part of the land out of five parcels of Seoul Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, China, and five parcels of land, which are subject to the imposition of indemnity, directly or by leasing it to a third party, even after being expropriated by the Jung-gu, Seoul, China, and China.