1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff purchased and owned an unauthorized building on the above ground (hereinafter “instant building”) on May 18, 1998, and donated the said building to ASEAN on January 23, 2015.

B. On October 5, 2015, the Defendant imposed indemnity of KRW 3,559,200 (the occupancy period: October 5, 2010 to December 31, 2014) on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 81 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building, who was an owner of the instant part of the D road owned by Songpa-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) occupied the said part of the instant crime (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the following grounds as it is unlawful.

(1) On February 2, 2012, the Defendant imposed indemnity under the Road Act on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed a revocation lawsuit (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan17882) in this court and won the judgment of the Plaintiff on July 18, 2013, and the Defendant revoked the disposition of indemnity ex officio in accordance with the recommendation of mediation in the appellate court and withdrawn the Plaintiff’s lawsuit. The Defendant imposed indemnity under the Public Property Act on the Plaintiff at another time, which violates the principle of res judicata.

(2) Despite the fact that the instant land was connected to the instant building as well as to other houses adjacent to the instant building, imposing indemnity only for the instant building owned by the Plaintiff is in violation of the principle of equality.

In addition, even though the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the building of this case on May 18, 1998, the Defendant occupied the building without permission.