1. The Defendant’s disposition of collecting KRW 4,810,58,020 of land usage fees imposed on the Plaintiff on January 20, 2015 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Korea National Housing Corporation (Korea National Housing Corporation was enacted on May 2, 2009 and implemented on October 1, 2009, and the Plaintiff comprehensively succeeded to the property, rights, and obligations of the Korea National Housing Corporation; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff” without distinguishing between the Korea National Housing Corporation and the Plaintiff) received a loan from the Republic of Korea for a fixed period of 670-1 and 39 lots (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) owned by the Republic of Korea around 1978.

From around 1979 to 1980, the Plaintiff constructed an apartment building with the name “Korea-Namk Dok” used by the USFK on the instant land (hereinafter “Korea-Namk Do”).

Hannam-do has existed on the land of this case until now.

B. In around 2003, Korea filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for return of unjust enrichment against the Seoul Central District Court on the ground that “The Plaintiff acquired unjust enrichment by owning Hannam-do on the instant land and occupying the instant land, despite the expiration of the free loan period.”

In 208, the Seoul High Court in charge of the appellate court of the above lawsuit rendered a decision in lieu of the conciliation, which included that “the plaintiff shall pay 20% of the rental proceeds of Hannam-do at the end of the year from January 1, 2008, in return for the use of the land of this case, to the end of possession,” and the decision became final and conclusive.

According to the decision in lieu of the above conciliation, the Plaintiff has paid the price for land use to the Republic of Korea by November 30, 2014.

C. However, on November 26, 2014, the Defendant, rather than the method prescribed in the decision in lieu of the above conciliation, rather than the method prescribed in the State Property Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff changed the lease method of Hannam Village to the relocation of the U.S. military base, and changed the circumstances that could not have been predicted at the time of confirmation of the decision in lieu of conciliation.