1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 18, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Busan Traffic Corporation and the B Station’s public parking lot (hereinafter “instant parking lot”) with respect to the total area of 6,622.8 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) out of 104,630 square meters in Busan Seo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City and 16,70 square meters in a miscellaneous land owned by the Defendant, and 16,700 square meters in a miscellaneous land owned by the Defendant, and operated the said parking lot.

On January 18, 2014, the Plaintiff renewed the above lease contract with the Busan Traffic Corporation as of January 17, 2017.

B. On December 29, 2016, the Defendant, who was delegated to Busan Traffic Corporation, received the management right over the instant parking lot No. 16,700 square meters, which was the instant parking lot site, and issued a public notice of tender regarding the permission to use and benefit from the said land 6,02.3 square meters among the said land.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant tender”). C.

On January 11, 2017, January 23, 2017, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to restore a temporary building (parking office) installed on the instant land as the lease term expires as January 17, 2017.

On June 12, 2017, the Defendant imposed an indemnity of KRW 67,528,710 on the Plaintiff on the ground that he/she occupied the instant land without permission (the occupancy period: January 18, 2017 to March 31, 2017).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion in the instant tendering procedure, E did not file an application for permission to use and benefit within five (5) days from the successful bid date, and thus, the said successful bid became null and void, and accordingly, no person to take over the entrance blocking facilities, electric facilities, waterworks, parking safety facilities, etc. installed by

If the plaintiff removes the above facilities, it is impossible to manage the parking lot of this case, and the parking lot users experience inconvenience, so the parking lot continues to be used for the convenience of the parking lot users.