1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building and the building on the land located in Gangseo-si Blue City (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and the building on the ground. The Plaintiff occupied the C & 11 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the State adjacent thereto as a building on the ground as shown in the attached Form.

B. On September 17, 2019, the Defendant imposed indemnity of KRW 2,423,250 on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land, which is State property, without permission.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of imposing indemnity is lawful.

A. Since around 1981, the Plaintiff’s father, who was the Plaintiff’s father, was the Plaintiff’s land owned by the State before the Plaintiff’s birth, the Plaintiff lived in a peaceful life for 37 years from the Plaintiff’s land and the instant land. The neighboring housing is also constructed on the same line as the Plaintiff’s housing. Since the Plaintiff acquired the instant land by prescription, the Defendant’s imposition of indemnity against the Plaintiff is unlawful.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the claim for ownership transfer registration based on the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of land in this case by the court 2019Da3420, and lost it. There is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lawfully acquired the land in this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit without further review.

Inasmuch as the Defendant’s assertion is against the principle of protecting trust, the Defendant’s failure to impose indemnity up to the date prior to the instant disposition of imposing indemnity is merely a mere omission and thus cannot be viewed as a public opinion statement. Thus, this cannot be viewed as contrary to the principle of protecting trust.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered.