1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

3...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a State-owned property managed by the Defendant, resides in an unauthorized building with 298 square meters above that of Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and occupies the said land without permission.

B. The Defendant imposed each indemnity on the Plaintiff as set out in the [Attachment Nos. 1 through 4] (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4-3, 5-7, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3-3, Eul evidence 4-1, 5-1, Eul evidence 5-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. Each disposition of the Plaintiff’s assertion in this case contains any defects as seen below, and such defects are serious and clear, each of the above dispositions is null and void.

1) At the time of imposing indemnity, the Defendant imposed indemnity on the Plaintiff without stating the grounds for calculation of indemnity, such as the application rate of the officially announced price in the notice of payment. In addition, according to Article 72 of the State Property Act and Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the Defendant did not use the above form and did not provide guidance on the filing period, etc., each of the dispositions of this case is in violation of the Act and subordinate statutes. 2) Since the amount of indemnity excessively increased due to a significant increase in the officially announced price of indemnity, this is unfair.

3) The attachment of a deposit claim under the Plaintiff’s name by the Defendant is unlawful as a seizure of expenses incurred in urgent recovery corresponding to the obligor’s relief projects under Article 246(1) of the Civil Execution Act, and the Plaintiff’s balance of the passbook should be excluded from the scope of seizure. B. The same is as indicated in the relevant statutes. C. 1) According to Articles 71(4) and 36(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act, when collecting indemnity pursuant to the determination of the first assertion, the amount, payment deadline, place of payment, and additional charges should be determined.