1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding the revocation of the demand for payment of indemnity as of May 22, 2015 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant from around 1994 to around 2004, and occupied and used the river site B and C (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) in Silung City, which is a State-owned land.

B. On the ground that the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate without obtaining a new permit after the expiration of the permission period on December 31, 2004, the Defendant imposed a disposition of KRW 109,790,000 on August 30, 2013 on the Plaintiff for the imposition of KRW 109,79,790,000 for the restoration direction and indemnity (the occupancy area: 345 square meters, imposition period: July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2013).

C. As the Plaintiff did not pay the indemnity within the payment period, the Defendant demanded the payment of KRW 109,790,000 and the additional dues of KRW 3,293,700 on December 3, 2013 (1). On May 22, 2014, the Defendant urged payment of KRW 109,790,000 and additional dues of KRW 27,008,340 (2).

On September 14, 2015, the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff continued to occupy and use the instant real estate without permission, issued a disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 50,452,00 (the area of occupation and use: 345 square meters; the period for imposition: July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015; hereinafter “instant disposition for imposition”).

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the whole purport of pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff, from June 1989, filled up and cleared the instant real estate, which was a yellow land, and used the said real estate after obtaining permission from the Defendant from around 1994.

On 194, the Plaintiff paid the usage fee according to the advice of the employee in charge at the time of submitting the application for permission for the profit from the use of land. On 2004, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the occupation area of the Plaintiff is less than 345 square meters, and the Plaintiff demanded the employee in charge of the Defendant to refund the usage fee paid up to the time.

At that time, its employees are the Plaintiff.