1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 41,453,140 of indemnity against the Plaintiff on October 15, 2012 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 28, 2006, the Plaintiff purchased B large 156.7 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) from Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and two-story neighborhood living facilities and housing buildings (hereinafter “instant building”) on its ground, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 28, 2006, and owned from that time to that time.

B. The instant site is adjacent to the Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City road 667.8 square meters, which is a State-owned land. The instant building is constructed with 16.8 square meters out of the said State-owned land (hereinafter “instant occupied part”).

C. On October 15, 2012, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 41,453,140 for the period from October 16, 2007 to October 15, 2012 on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied, used, without any loan agreement, the occupied portion, which is State property.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-2, 5-1, 2-1, 1-2, and 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition imposing indemnity on the Plaintiff even though the prescriptive acquisition on the part of the Plaintiff’s assertion was completed is unlawful.

B. In light of the evidence revealed earlier, the entry of Gap evidence No. 7 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is presumed that the building of this case was constructed around April 1956 and approved for use on April 16, 1956, and D purchased and sold the building of this case on March 12, 1970 to A on November 8, 2004. After that, the plaintiff purchased and owned on June 28, 2006. The part of this case is being used as the site of the building of this case. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff succeeded to the possession of Eul and Eul, the former owner, and it is presumed that the possession of the building of this case was carried out in a peaceful performance with the intent of ownership, and the prescription period was completed before October 16, 2007, the period for which the defendant imposed indemnity was imposed.

For this reason,