1. The Defendant’s imposition of indemnity amounting to KRW 56,722,540 on December 2, 2010 exceeds KRW 502,071,860, out of the imposition of indemnity amounting to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to manage public property loans, etc. by Daegu Metropolitan City pursuant to Article 2 [Attachment 2] of the Daegu Metropolitan City Ordinance on Entrustment of Administrative Affairs. The Defendant is a corporation established on December 31, 2003 under the Framework Act on Railroad Industry Development and the Korea Rail Network Authority Act for the purpose of contributing to the enhancement of citizens’ convenience in transportation and the sound development of the national economy by efficiently constructing and managing railroad facilities and performing other related projects.

B. On September 1, 2009, the Defendant: (a) held the Plaintiff on September 1, 2009, 1332-3, and 6,279 square meters of land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”; and (b) held and used indemnity 1,621,86,87,160 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff without permission for use under Article 72 of the State Property Act; and (c) held and notified the Plaintiff on September 1, 2009, in total, 473-22, 483-1, 483-2, 483-169, 483-172, 1332-3, 1332-66; and (d) held and used the remaining 1605 square meters of land without permission for use under Article 72 of the State Property Act.

() On October 28, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission revoked the said disposition on the ground that there was a defect in the determination of the property value of the instant land on September 1, 2009. Accordingly, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 556,722,540 of the indemnity by applying the usage fee rate of 50/100 following the issuance of the property value of the instant land upon the ruling of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on December 2, 2010. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence No. 5, statement No. 2, No. 2, and No. 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

① The Plaintiff is not entitled to impose indemnity. ② Since the managing agency of the instant land No. 2 is Daegu Metropolitan City, which is not the Plaintiff, it is unlawful to impose indemnity by designating the Plaintiff as an occupant. ③ The Plaintiff is an urban planning project for the instant land.