1. On July 30, 2013, the part exceeding KRW 569,754,520, among the disposition imposing indemnity against the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the executor of the housing site development project for the housing site development project, for which the implementation plan for the housing site development project is approved under Article 2006-549 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s notification on December 20, 2006 (hereinafter “instant project district”).

As the project district was converted into a Bogeumjari Housing District on October 27, 2009, the said housing site development project was changed into the Bogeumjari Housing Construction Project.

B. Each land listed in the separate sheet of real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant land,” if all the above land is referred to, and when referring to the individual land, it shall be specified as Dong and lot number in the administrative district) is the State’s property in the instant project district.

C. On July 30, 2013, the Defendant imposed an indemnity of KRW 610,674,340 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 72 of the State Property Act on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant land without any title, and the details of calculating indemnity are as follows.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the grounds for recognition】 The entry of Gap evidence 1, 6-1, 2, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties’ assertion and the issues of the instant case

A. The plaintiff alleged that the parties concerned were entitled to approval of the implementation plan for the housing site development project of this case on December 20, 2006. Thus, the plaintiff is deemed to have obtained permission for use of the land of this case, which is administrative property under Article 30 of the State Property Act, under Article 11 (1) 16 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act.

Therefore, the disposition of this case based on the premise that the Plaintiff occupied and used the land of this case without permission is unlawful.

Defendant: The instant land is a road, river, ditch only on its land category, and its actual usage does not constitute administrative property. As such, it cannot be deemed that permission for use under Article 30 of the State Property Act has been obtained pursuant to Article 11(1)16 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, and it occupies and uses State property, other than administrative property, without permission.