1. On July 25, 201, the part of the Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 782,800 against the Plaintiff, which exceeds KRW 738,770, out of the amount of compensation imposed by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 14, 1982, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of 29.51/10 of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, 965 square meters and D large 71 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and 102 of the three-story buildings (hereinafter “instant building”).

The defendant shall be a management agency of 277 square meters prior to Gangnam-gu Seoul, which is a State-owned land.

B. The Defendant, including the Plaintiff, is the access road to the instant building by 18 co-owners of the instant land, not more than 16§³ of the said State-owned land, and “the instant State-owned land”

In accordance with Article 72(1) of the State Property Act and Article 71 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, with respect to the Plaintiff on July 25, 2011 on the ground that he/she occupied and used B without permission, the imposition period shall be from May 1, 2006 to April 30, 201, imposing an indemnity of KRW 782,800 equivalent to the Plaintiff’s above portion of the imposition period, as indicated below, and “the instant disposition”.

A) The imposition period was. The aggregate of the officially announced land price (16 square meters x 29.51 square meters x 20.51 square meters) size (16 square meters x 20.36 x 36 x 20.36 x 36 x 126 x 125% on May 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. 6,850 0.46 - 7,730,000 on January 1, 2007 to 36.36 / 365% on April 36, 200, 206 to 0.365/365/365 213,50 on December 31, 2008, to 306 to 36.64% on December 6, 206, 20036-6/636/6, 209.

C. As to this, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the purport of the claim as stated in the instant lawsuit, but on October 24, 201, the part regarding the instant disposition was dismissed, and the part demanding the installation of a fence was dismissed.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 9, 10, 12 (including each number) and images

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

㈎ 이 사건 건물에 부대한 공터는 지목이...