1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 3.06m2 in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the coagu floor house and store 33.06m2 (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On June 1, 2016, the Defendant imposed KRW 5,969,680 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant building occupied 5.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from among the roads C, a State-owned land, without permission.

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] Gap's evidence 1-2, Gap's evidence 3, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) Since the building next to the instant building was newly set back and newly built, and since the street line bordering the road of the instant building and the new building was set up in a straight line, the Plaintiff did not possess the instant land, the Defendant arbitrarily set the survey control point without prior notice or notification, and conducted a cadastral survey, and imposed indemnity on the Plaintiff according to the result of the survey. (2) On December 21, 1983, the Plaintiff occupied the instant land in a peaceful and openly owned intent to own the said building for 33 years from that time by properly purchasing the instant building from the former owner and possessing the said building, and thus, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land by prescription.

(A) The Plaintiff asserted that the statute of limitation has expired under Article 245(2) of the Civil Act. However, the Plaintiff merely registered as the owner of the instant building, and the Plaintiff did not register as the owner of the instant land. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the statute of limitation has expired under Article 245(1) of the Civil Act.

Judgment

According to the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 2-1, and Eul evidence No. 2-2 as to whether land possession is permitted, D ground buildings of this case, the location of which is the same as that of street lines, are C.