1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 15, 200, the Plaintiff, a corporation operating a specialized construction business, obtained permission from the Defendant on the land category B and C, the land category of which falls under the railway site (hereinafter “land to be used in this case”), and occupied and used the said land as a site for factories and warehouse buildings (as to the portion of the above land around August 1989, which is about 96 square meters, and as to the portion of the above land, from May 1990, it appears that from January 1995, the Plaintiff used the pertinent land with the Plaintiff’s representative director D’s permission as to the land to be used in this case).

In around 2007, the Defendant discovered that the size of the Plaintiff’s occupation increased than the originally permitted area after the installation of a river molding construction and a fence installed at Gunpo-si, 2007, and calculated the Plaintiff’s unauthorized occupation area as 89 square meters and imposed the indemnity.

In addition, in May 2010, as a result of the survey conducted on the Plaintiff’s occupied portion, the Plaintiff’s unauthorized occupied portion was additionally discovered with an additional 171 square meters, and the Plaintiff imposed indemnity for the Plaintiff with respect to the land of 260 square meters in total [railroad land, which constitutes State property; hereinafter “instant unauthorized occupation land”; and hereinafter “the instant land to be used” (261 square meters) and “the instant land” (521 square meters in total) with respect to the land to be used in the instant case.

C. From January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010, the Defendant: (a) determined the period of use from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010; (b) granted the Plaintiff permission to use the instant land; and (c) on November 25, 2010, the period of use permission to the Plaintiff is expected to expire as December 31, 2010; and (d) accordingly, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to restore the said land to its original state immediately after the expiration of the period

However, even after the expiration of the use permission period, the Plaintiff continued to occupy and use the instant land, and paid compensation to the Defendant annually.

The Plaintiff’s instant case against the Defendant on January 12, 201.