1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On December 13, 2011, the Plaintiff, owned by the Republic of Korea, occupied and used 627 square meters of land for factory in Seo-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”), without a loan agreement, and the Defendant imposed indemnity of KRW 133,468,660 (hereinafter “instant indemnity”) on the Plaintiff from December 7, 2006 to December 6, 201, based on the imposition period from December 7, 2006 to December 6, 201.

(B) On December 26, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a loan agreement with the Defendant on the instant land.

On the other hand, on December 7, 2016, the registration of seizure was entered in the C New Daily Motor Vehicle owned by the Plaintiff as the procedure for the disposition of arrears with the instant indemnity on December 7, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 9, 13, and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. If the Plaintiff’s assertion is not exercised within five years under Article 73-3(1) of the State Property Act, the period of extinctive prescription is complete. The instant indemnity occurred from December 7, 2006 to December 6, 201, and the Defendant was entitled to exercise its right at the end of the period of the instant indemnity, and thus, the starting point of the period of the extinctive prescription was December 6, 201 and the starting point of the period of the instant indemnity expired on December 6, 2017.

(B) On December 28, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s attachment disposition on the Plaintiff’s automobile owned by the Plaintiff is unlawful as it goes against the principle of trust protection, since D, who was in charge of the instant disposition of imposition of indemnity, demanded the Defendant to consent to the instant disposition of imposition of indemnity on December 26, 201, upon entering into a loan agreement with the Defendant on December 26, 201, and agreed that “the instant disposition of imposition of indemnity shall be prepared only in the form of confirmation, and the indemnity shall be extinguished upon the lapse of five years, and the Defendant shall not seize it within the said period.”

Therefore, the indemnity of this case does not exist in any case, so that the absence of the indemnity is confirmed.

3. Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful