The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 29, 1982, the Plaintiff (former: an incorporated association: B) acquired ownership of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C & 18.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and D & D land 1,218.8 square meters (hereinafter “affiliated land”). On March 22, 1984, the Plaintiff newly constructed a building of the second and seventh floors (hereinafter “consolidated building”) on the adjoining land.

B. On May 10, 198, Seoul Special Metropolitan City completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the land of this case on the ground of the acquisition of public land consultation.

(c)

On October 20, 2020, based on Article 81 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”) on the ground that the Defendant occupied the instant land without permission, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 72,43,700 as compensation for the period from October 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Attached Form of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the building adjacent to the acquisition of the commercial zone adjacent to the legal suspension under the customary law exists on the land adjacent to the building, the land adjacent to the connected building and the land of this case practically functioned as a single land for the use of the connected building. As the owner of the land of this case changed to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Plaintiff is in a legal position to justify the possession or use of the land of this case by acquiring the commercial zone subject to the legal suspension under the customary law.

2) The Defendant did not impose usage fees or variable rewards once from May 10, 198 to the Plaintiff from May 10, 198 to the disposition of this case, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not pay usage fees or variable rewards once.