1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a state-owned land, owned real estate in the vicinity of 21.2 square meters in Busan Jin-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant site”).

B. On July 10, 2008, the Defendant imposed KRW 11,373,060 on the Plaintiff for the pertinent period pursuant to Article 51 of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 9401, Jan. 30, 2009) on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant land without permission from July 9, 2003 to December 20, 206.

(hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition of indemnity”). C.

On June 5, 2013, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay the indemnity amounting to KRW 11,373,060 and late payment penalty amounting to KRW 8,300,770. On September 22, 2014, the Defendant urged the payment of KRW 19,907,520, totaling KRW 11,373,060 and late payment penalty amounting to KRW 8,534,460.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant demand for payment”). 【No dispute exists concerning the payment of the instant case’s grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the instant site is a road, no usage fee (compensation) cannot be imposed, and even if it is possible to impose indemnity, three nearby residents, including the Plaintiff, were used, and the Plaintiff did not use the instant building and the instant site due to the deterioration of the Plaintiff’s owned building, the imposition of indemnity based on the premise that the Plaintiff was solely using the instant site is unlawful.

B. Since the plaintiff or his father and wife C did not receive the notice of imposition of indemnity of this case, the imposition of indemnity of this case is nonexistent or null and void, and the defendant's right to impose indemnity has expired due to the expiration of extinctive prescription.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate and the disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The defendant's primary claim of the plaintiff 1 was against the defendant's demand for the payment of indemnity, and the demand for payment cannot be subject to appeal litigation. Thus, this part of the claim is not claimed.