1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a state-owned land, owned real estate in the vicinity of 21.2 square meters in Busan Jin-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant site”).

B. On July 10, 2008, the Defendant imposed KRW 11,373,060 on the Plaintiff for the pertinent period pursuant to Article 51 of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 9401, Jan. 30, 2009) on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant land without permission from July 9, 2003 to December 20, 206.

(hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition of indemnity”). C.

On June 5, 2013, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay the indemnity amounting to KRW 11,373,060 and KRW 8,300,770 as well as additional dues. On September 22, 2014, the Defendant paid and urged KRW 19,907,520 in total, including KRW 11,373,060 and additional dues, KRW 8,534,460.

(hereinafter “instant payment and demand”). 【No dispute exists concerning the payment and demand of this case (based on recognition), Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant site was used not only by the Plaintiff but also by three households around the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's imposition of indemnity based on the premise that the plaintiff independently used the site of this case is illegal.

Therefore, around September 22, 2014, the Defendant’s instant payment and demand against the Plaintiff should be revoked, and the Defendant’s imposition of indemnity against the Plaintiff on July 10, 2008 and the imposition of additional dues on September 22, 2014 should be revoked.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. The Defendant’s defense 1) The Defendant’s primary claim pertains to the Defendant’s payment and demand of indemnity, and the payment and demand cannot be subject to an appeal litigation. Therefore, this part of the claim is unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff’s primary claim pertaining to the disposition of imposition of indemnity is unlawful after the period for filing the lawsuit.

B. Determination 1 on the Plaintiff’s primary claim is an indemnity.