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 July 4, 2012, the Plaintiff intended to purchase the land of Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul (the instant State-owned land in the following below) and the land of 3 large scale 46 square meters prior to subdivision, in order to construct accommodation facilities equipped with the total floor area of 8,828.38 square meters, guest rooms, 224, Lestop and 55 square meters, and Lestop and 76 square meters, which are the State-owned land, on the land outside Jongno-gu, and 77 square meters on the land outside Jongno-gu, and it did not enter into a contract with the Defendant on the wind that does not reach

B. On January 12, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 92,765,180 for the period of possession from July 5, 2012 to January 1, 2015 on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied each of the instant State-owned land to newly build accommodation facilities without permission (the instant disposition was conducted under the following).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) obtained approval of a business plan relating to the construction of the instant accommodation from Jongno-gu Office. However, since eight parcels of land including each of the instant state-owned land are project sites, it is difficult to deem that each of the instant state-owned land was occupied and used without permission.

(2) The officially assessed individual land price for each of the instant State-owned land was 4,450,000 won for the year 2013, prior to the Plaintiff’s commencement of construction of accommodation facilities. As a result of the Plaintiff’s new construction of accommodation facilities, the officially assessed individual land price was 6,086,00 won for the year 2014.

Although the Defendant did not make any contribution to the increase in the officially announced land prices of each of the instant state-owned land, and solely made land price increase by the Plaintiff’s efforts, the Defendant selected a new comparative standard site due to the change in the form, quality, shape, etc. of the land, and then calculated the officially assessed individual land price and imposed indemnity based on

(3) The Defendant, from July 5, 2012, owns the State-owned land of this case.