1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 22, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired a building of 232 square meters and its ground.

B. As a result of the survey conducted on June 3, 201, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff used six square meters prior to Bupyeong-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant land”) as the site for the instant ground building, which is State property, and imposed KRW 190,110,00 for indemnity on July 25, 201, based on the imposition period from July 4, 2006 to June 3, 201 pursuant to Article 72 of the State Property Act, based on the imposition period from July 3, 2011 to June 3, 2011, the indemnity amounting to KRW 1,527,380, and the imposition period from June 14, 201 to December 31, 2011, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “each disposition of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful since the Plaintiff occupied only 0.1 square meters among the instant land, but did not possess 6 square meters, and since from around 2002, the right to impose indemnity on the instant land has expired around 2007 after the lapse of five years from that date, each disposition of the instant case was thereafter made. Each disposition of the instant case is unlawful. The managing authority of the instant land around the time of each disposition of the instant case was entrusted with the management authority only on June 19, 2013, and the Defendant was entrusted with the management authority only on June 19, 2013, and thus, the instant disposition made by a non-authorized person was unlawful, thus seeking nullification of each of the instant dispositions

B. According to the statement No. 9-1 through 5 of the evidence No. 9-5, the Defendant’s boundary survey conducted on June 3, 201 to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land equivalent to six square meters.

In general, the right to impose indemnity is subject to the five-year extinctive prescription under Article 96(1) of the National Finance Act. However, the defendant imposed indemnity for the first time on July 25, 201, taking into account the prior notice period of the imposition period from July 4, 2006 to June 3, 201. The plaintiff continued to impose indemnity for the first time.