1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant stated in the attached list that he had against the plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where “the State-owned land in this case, other than C and 296 parcel 37,650 square meters (hereinafter “the State-owned land in this case”)” is deemed as “the State-owned land indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “the State-owned land in this case”),” under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The court's explanation on this part of the plaintiff's assertion is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation on this part is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the relevant statutes is the same as that of the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

C. 1) The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the assertion on the retroactive application of statutes is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2) Without examining the remaining arguments of the plaintiff, the instant disposition is unlawful since it did not comply with the original condition of permission for use and benefit.

However, according to the usage fee calculation method stipulated by the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act prior to the amendment, even if the usage fee for the State-owned land of this case was calculated in 2014, the portion corresponding to the usage fee calculated as above in the instant disposition is lawful and its exceeding part is unlawful. Thus, only the portion exceeding the usage fee out of the instant disposition exceeds the legitimate usage fee.