1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Defendant issued a disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 64,820,980 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on December 26, 2012 on the ground that the Defendant occupied 549 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) out of 383-2 1,38 square meters in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, the State-owned land from December 27, 2007 to September 18, 2012, on the ground that he/she occupied 549 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), which was a State-owned land from December 27, 2007, without any dispute between the parties, or is recognized by

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) around November 17, 2002, the plaintiff used the land of this case as a site site with the implied permission from the head of the Korea Pharmaceutical University at the Seoul National University from the head of the Korea Pharmaceutical University. Thus, the plaintiff did not occupy the land without permission.

② From December 27, 2007 to August 5, 2012 during the Plaintiff’s occupation period, the land management authority was not the Defendant, and the previous management authority of the said land did not give any advance notice of indemnity for ten years. Thus, the Defendant, who thereafter transferred the land management authority, was subject to the imposition of indemnity retroactively, is an administrative act conducted without the authority of disposal contrary to the prescribed administrative procedure, and thus, is naturally null and void.

③ The Plaintiff occupied and used the instant land by reliance on the permission of free use by the president of the Institute of Drug and Pharmaceutical Affairs attached to the Seoul University for a period of ten years, and did not have been subject to any request for evacuation or imposition of indemnity. Therefore, the instant disposition is null and void on the ground that there was a serious and obvious defect in violation of the principle of trust protection.

B. (1) Determination (1) Article 2 Subparag. 9 of the State Property Act provides that a person who uses, benefits from, or possesses State property without permission for use or loan contract, or who continues to use, benefit from, or possesses State property without permission for use or loan contract, after the expiration of the period for permission for use or loan contract, shall be deemed an indemnity imposed on the person who has occupied State property without permission for use or loan contract. Article 72(1) provides that