1. The Defendant’s imposition of indemnity amounting to KRW 39,013,80 against the Plaintiff on May 16, 2014 exceeds KRW 32,678,323.

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu and the building on the ground (this case’s land is written below) and Jung-gu, Seoul (the building in this case is written below).

B. The instant building was 42 square meters, among C, 99 square meters (the instant ditch in the following below). However, on August 23, 2013, the Plaintiff restored part of the building, where the instant land was invaded, to its original state, and reduced to 41 square meters in an unauthorized occupied part.

C. In accordance with Article 81 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant building, imposed indemnity on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 81 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied the instant ditches without permission (the following dispositions were taken).

The officially assessed individual land price on June 27, 2013: May 16, 2014; on June 26, 2013, 2008; the officially assessed individual land price x 42 x 0.05 x the occupancy period x 1.2 x 361,600 x June 27, 2013; the officially assessed individual land price x 42 x 0.05 x the occupancy period x 1.42 x 0.05 x 23,05 x 800 x 23,00 - the officially assessed individual land price x 41 x 0.05 x x 10.05 x 1.2 / 2 / 1.2 / 3 of the whole pleadings / the pleading period / the pleading period / the pleading period / the whole subparagraph 13 /3 of the following subparagraphs.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion is a building where Nonparty D et al. reside together with his family and its purpose is considered as a residential building, the Defendant recognized it as a commercial building and calculated indemnity by applying the imposition rate of 0.05%.

(Plaintiff stated in the pleading that there was no objection to the officially announced land price as expressed in the reply of the representative of the two appraisal corporations on January 18, 2016, and that there was no assertion as to extinctive prescription. Accordingly, each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful.

(b) Article 6 (1) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act does not follow procedures and methods prescribed by this Act or other Acts;