1. Disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 110,416,420 against the Plaintiff on June 8, 2012, and indemnity of March 18, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant imposed KRW 10,416,420 on the Plaintiff on June 8, 2012, on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the part on the ship (hereinafter “instant land”) 171 square meters in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 among the land of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoyang-dong 303-9, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”), which was owned by the Plaintiff, without permission, on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the part on the ship (hereinafter “instant land”).

In addition, on March 14, 2013, the Defendant additionally imposed 12,819,950 won of indemnity from June 9, 2012 to December 31, 2012 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied or used the instant land without permission.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” in combination with each of the above dispositions of imposition of indemnity

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the disposition of indemnity on June 8, 2012, but was dismissed on February 14, 2013.

【Ground of recognition】 Facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence 6, Gap’s evidence 7, Gap’s evidence 12-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) as the Defendant displayed a boundary by stockpiling stone at the elementary school and middle school of the Gu, the external form that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land was formed. This is not caused by the Defendant’s cause attributable to it, but is not an unauthorized occupancy.

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant occupy the land of the other party in mutual crossings, which is due to the fault of the Defendant or due to the erroneous measurement of land boundary. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s possession of the Plaintiff did not comply with the return of unjust enrichment due to possession, etc., and it goes against equity to impose punitive indemnity only against the Plaintiff.

(3) The lower part of the instant land without determining the accurate area possessed by the Plaintiff is unlawful to calculate the amount of indemnity, which the Plaintiff occupied and used without permission, without permission, the entire area of the instant land.

(b) fact-finding (1) Gwangjin-dong 303-9, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul.