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 registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the Republic of Korea with respect to B large 764 square meters and C large 56 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On March 30, 2010, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 29,550,840 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) under Article 72 of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 10485, Mar. 30, 2011) on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant land without permission.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Gap evidence 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is D’s possessor or user of the instant land. Since the said D completed the prescriptive acquisition on January 1, 1985 on the instant land, the instant disposition on a different premise should be revoked as unlawful.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. According to Article 72(1) of the former State Property Act, the office of administration, etc. is obliged to collect from an occupant without permission an indemnity equivalent to 120/100 of the usage fees or rent of the relevant property, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

B. First, in full view of whether the Plaintiff occupied the instant land without permission or not, the instant land is owned by the Republic of Korea as seen earlier, and the overall purport of the entries and pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as well as the entire purport of the pleadings, the above land is constructed with a building of 65.52m2 square meters per wood cement, 65.52m2 per se, per se, per se, per se, se, se, cement mortar and branch roof, and 12.95m2, etc. (hereinafter “the instant building”). On July 30, 1986, the registration of preservation of ownership has been completed for the instant building. The instant building is being used as a temple of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is well-known of the said temple, and the Plaintiff or D did not have obtained permission from the Republic of Korea for the use of the instant land.