1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 717,800 of indemnity against the Plaintiff on June 17, 2015 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is a state-owned property, and the Plaintiff is the owner of C’s land adjacent to the instant land and the restaurant building on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”).

On March 31, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would impose indemnity of KRW 721,010 on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant land without any loan agreement, and the Plaintiff did not occupy the instant land on the ground that the instant land is used as a passage of many unspecified persons, and submitted a written opinion on April 14, 2015.

On May 27, 2015, the defendant occupied and used the land of this case exclusively by the plaintiff as part of the building of this case for entry into and exit from the building of this case. However, the defendant confirmed that part of the land of this case was incorporated into the pedestrian road of this case and confirmed that the area of the land of this case will be changed and notified again.

After that, on June 17, 2015, the Defendant imposed a total of 717,800 won of indemnity on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 72(1) of the State Property Act, following the prior notice procedure, on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used 16 square meters of the instant land from January 1, 2014 to June 16, 2015 (hereinafter “instant land”).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). (hereinafter “Disposition in this case”) without dispute, the entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the parties’ assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, and the Plaintiff’s assertion of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are land remaining, not incorporated into the roadway and India due to the construction work of building roads in the Duyang-gun. The Plaintiff uses the land adjacent to it, which is not the land in this case, as entry into the building in this case, and the land in this case has a sewage management plant.

Therefore, this case is based on the premise that the plaintiff occupied and used the land of this case.