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 June 26, 2015, the Defendant: (a) imposed indemnity of KRW 116,35,570 on the Plaintiff; (b) imposed on the Plaintiff on the land without permission under Article 72 of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 14041, Mar. 2, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); (c) provided, “In the event that the Plaintiff did not within the time limit for the land indicated in attached Table 1, 26 lots of land, including Daegu-gun-gun, Daegu-gun, the road, etc. (hereinafter “instant land for occupation without permission”), the Defendant restored the land to its original state to its original state that it may perform administrative vicarious execution under Article 74 of the former State Property Act.

B. After that, on August 20, 2015, the Defendant reduced the imposition of indemnity as stated in the above paragraph (a) to KRW 78,634,970.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” in total, among the disposition imposing indemnity on June 26, 2015, the imposition of indemnity remaining after the reduction as above, and the disposition imposing indemnity for the restoration of the original state thereof. [Grounds for recognition]] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s entry of evidence 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence 1 through 1, 3, 5, and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In order to remove earth and sand generated at the site of the instant construction from a sand station (referring to a place for piling up soil generated at the soil construction), the Plaintiff’s assertion submitted to the supervision group with a written consent for bringing in the sand from the Jinjin Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Uinjin Construction”), which is an original building, to the supervision group, and ordered the removal of the sand to D, E, F, etc., which is a dump truck truck transport business operator.

However, D, E, etc., without any consultation with the Plaintiff, enter into the unauthorized occupation of this case at will.

If so, the subject of the unauthorized occupation of this case is located.