1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing indemnity of KRW 109,132,790 against the Plaintiff on February 25, 2016 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an incorporated association that is entrusted by the Defendant with the management of infrastructure in an agro-industrial complex in the direct industry-specific sub-industrial complex pursuant to the Ordinance on Management of Agricultural and Industrial Complexes

B. On February 25, 2016, the Defendant: (a) occupied and used land and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant co-owned property”) located in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Incheon-do, in which the Plaintiff owns as public property owned by Seoan-si; (b) without obtaining permission for the loan, use, and profit-making during the period from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015; (c) imposed indemnity of KRW 109,132,790 on the Plaintiff on the ground that it is the public property owned by Seoan-si (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff occupied a site and a building for the management office of the directly transmitted agro-industrial complex in a position entrusted by the Defendant with the management of infrastructure in the directly transmitted agro-industrial complex. As such, the Plaintiff has a legal status to justify the possession, use, and profit-making of the instant public property. (ii) Although the Defendant had the Plaintiff conduct the management of the directly transmitted agro-industrial complex in the instant public property for a period exceeding 25 years, it goes against the principle of trust protection.

3) The extinctive prescription of a claim for the imposition of indemnity against the period prior to February 25, 201, which was five years later from the time of the instant disposition, was completed. (c) If each of the evidence, Gap evidence No. 2, and evidence No. 4, and evidence No. 10 were added to the overall purport of the pleadings and arguments as stated in the relevant statutes, the following facts are recognized: (i) the defendant past Gun held the management authority of the directly transmitted agro-industrial complex, while the Gun held the management authority of the directly transmitted agro-industrial complex, the name was changed to the Gun of the Yanancheon-gun around 191, and on May 10, 1995, the Yanancheon-gun was in the