Of the instant lawsuits, the part concerning the claim for the imposition of indemnity from September 11, 2013 to October 9, 2013 and the cancellation of the notification disposition.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 8, 2018, the Defendant imposed KRW 5,700,450,000 on the Plaintiff for the period from September 11, 2013 to September 10, 2018 pursuant to Article 72 of the State Property Act, on the ground that “the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”) occupied 62 square meters in part of “bbb” as indicated in the attached drawing No. 1 among the 16,861 square meters of the roads 16,861 square meters in Daegu-gu, North-gu, Daegu (hereinafter “instant building”), a State-owned land, without permission.

(hereinafter referred to as “the first disposition”). (b)

On November 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the initial disposition, and the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling that “The disposition of imposition of indemnity from September 11, 2013 to October 9, 2013, when the extinctive prescription period of indemnity claim (five years) expires, and the remaining claims are dismissed.”

C. In accordance with the above ruling on January 4, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to reduce 79,800 won of indemnity corresponding to the period from September 11, 2013 to October 9 of the same year to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter) The imposition and notification disposition of the indemnity remaining after the reduction as above in the initial disposition is hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition has no dispute, each entry and video (including number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. The disposition agency which has taken an administrative disposition regarding the legal principle regarding the claim to revoke the disposition of imposition of indemnity from September 11, 2013 to October 9, 2013, where there is a defect in the disposition, may revoke or alter it by itself, even if there is no separate legal basis. In the disposition of imposition of indemnity, where the amount of indemnity is to be reduced by the administrative agency on the ground of a defect in the disposition of imposition of indemnity after it imposed the person liable for payment, the disposition of reduction is legally effective only for the reduced portion, and is separate from the original disposition of imposition and separate indemnity.