1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Each parcel of land indicated in the separate sheet “the date of registration” in the same list is the state property for which the Republic of Korea has completed the registration of ownership transfer or the registration of ownership preservation as indicated in the same list.

B. The Plaintiff, while performing the business of managing and disposing of the instant land by the office of general administration pursuant to the State Property Act, was entrusted with the business of managing and disposing of the instant land, and the Defendant urged the Defendant to pay the Defendant the sum of the indemnity and late payment charges corresponding to the period from July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2012, “32,526,600 won” during the period from July 10, 2013 to December 31, 2012, until July 21, 2013; and around July 24, 2013, “3,689,060 won” during the period from October 1, 2004 to December 31, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. It is as stated in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

B. The disposition of imposing indemnity under Article 72(1) of the State Property Act is an administrative disposition imposed on a person who uses any State property without permission, and under Article 73(2) of the same Act, where a person who uses any State property without permission fails to pay indemnity, the Office of Administration shall delegate it to the head of the competent tax office or the head of the competent local government to collect indemnity in accordance with the provisions on the disposition of arrears under the National Tax Collection Act. Thus, a claim of indemnity based on the disposition of imposing indemnity under the State Property

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da28568 Decided November 24, 200, and Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na201025 Decided February 7, 2014). We examine the following circumstances, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of each of the above evidence and all of the arguments.