1. On March 23, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of imposing indemnity as indicated in attached Form 1 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 9, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the non-party Daeyang Unemployment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party company”) and the non-party 488-3, 488-4 land (hereinafter “the land of this case”) in order to lease the lease deposit amount of KRW 200,000,000,000 from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2008, and used the land of this case as a factory for business, including recycling.

B. Around August 2003, the Defendant: (a) included the instant land in the site of the “Gyeongwon-Tgu Fire Fighting Project”; (b) notified the Nonparty Company of the compensation plan; and (c) purchased the instant land from the Nonparty Company on June 28, 2004 for the purpose of reclaiming the special high voltage line among the instant land for reclamation.

C. On the other hand, on February 5, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff occupied state-owned property without permission, as described in the attached Table 1, for the period from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2014, and notified the Plaintiff of his/her opinion by February 27, 2015, when the Plaintiff objects to the notification or intends to pay indemnity in installments.

On March 20, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a total of KRW 16,036,920 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant merely stated the period for imposing indemnity and the amount of indemnity without specifying the basis for calculating indemnity in the notice of imposition of indemnity and the prior notice, which violates the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. On the land adjacent to the instant land, the Plaintiff was tightly covered by soil with a considerable portion of the instant land, as it was located on the land adjacent to the instant land.