1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government road C road 387 square meters (hereinafter “instant road”) was originally owned by I, and Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government has completed the registration of transfer of ownership due to donation on September 5, 2003.

B. On June 26, 2000, the Plaintiff purchased B, Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, B, 179 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) and its ground housing (hereinafter “instant housing”).

However, the instant housing was not only the instant housing site, but also the 78 square meters of the instant road (hereinafter “the instant housing site”).

From that time, the Plaintiff continued to occupy the part of the instant house as part of the site of the instant house.

C. On September 27, 2013, the Defendant imposed indemnity of KRW 5,278,320 (from October 1, 2008 to June 30, 2013) on the Plaintiff under the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied the occupied portion, which is Gu property, without permission (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 8 (including Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) After acquiring the instant land and housing on May 3, 1984, the Plaintiff acquired it by transfer through G, H, and all the said D, G, H, and the Plaintiff occupied the instant portion of possession by gathering the fact that the instant housing was invaded by the instant road. Therefore, since the possession of D’s intent for at least 20 years from the beginning of possession, and the acquisition by prescription for the possession of the instant portion was completed on May 3, 2004, the instant disposition that was premised on the Plaintiff’s unauthorized occupation was unlawful. 2) The Defendant’s assertion is an administrative property for public use, which is an administrative property.