1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The plaintiffs' assertion on the ground of the claim of this case

A. On December 31, 2004 and February 9, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a State-owned property loan agreement with the Defendant on the said ditch (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Although the Plaintiffs: (a) lent the instant land for the purpose of cultivation; and (b) the public official affiliated with the Defendant changed the purpose of the land to “a residential or other” by intention or negligence; (c) entered the purpose of use into the contract into “site and housing site”; and (d) set and imposed rent according to the unfairly high standards for calculation.

In particular, the rent was calculated by applying 7 times higher than the neighboring land in the same condition, and the rate of rent was 10/1,000, not only for the purpose of cultivation but also for the case where the purpose of use is not specified. 50/1,000.

C. Therefore, according to the loan agreement concluded on December 31, 2004 and February 9, 2010 between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant, the standard for calculating the loan fee for State property from January 1, 2006 to April 2, 2013 regarding the instant land should be revised. As a result, the above loan fee’s obligation does not exceed KRW 987,427.

2. Determination

A. As to the above argument by the plaintiffs, the defendant asserts that the defendant has no authority to impose and collect the rent for the land of this case on June 30, 201, when performing the general property management affairs, such as the loan contract for the land of this case, entrusted by the Republic of Korea, and transferred the affairs of state property management to the Korea Asset Management Corporation as of June 30, 201 pursuant to Article 42 (1) of the State Property Act and Article 3

B. Therefore, according to the evidence Nos. 1, 6, 9, and 14, the plaintiff A as to the land of this case.