1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 1,932,020 of indemnity against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2015 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 9, 1999 with respect to B, Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter in this case’s land) and housing on its ground (hereinafter in this case’s housing). Of the instant building, 24 square meters are located on the ground of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government road C, Seongdong-gu, Seoul (hereinafter in this case’s road) owned by Seongdong-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is adjacent to the instant land.

B. On April 1, 2015, the Defendant, as the road management authority of the instant road, issued a disposition imposing indemnities of KRW 1,932,020 on the Plaintiff for the period from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2015, on the ground that the instant housing occupied the said 24 square meters (hereinafter the instant portion of the road) among the instant roads without permission (hereinafter the instant disposition).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 8, Eul 1 through 7 (including various numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) First, during around 1979, the non-party D started to occupy the part of the instant land as the owner's intent while newly building the instant land on the ground while he owned the instant land. Since the plaintiff occupied the instant part of possession for more than 20 years by aggregating D, D's heir, and E's possession, the prescriptive acquisition was completed. Therefore, the plaintiff has a legitimate right to possess the portion of the instant possession. Therefore, the defendant's disposition based on the premise that the plaintiff occupied the instant portion of possession without permission is unlawful. Second, the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter "Public Property Act").

The proviso of Article 81(1)1 of the Road Act and Article 72(2) of the Road Act stipulate the grounds for exception to the collection of indemnity. The instant disposition that did not apply is unlawful. 2) The Defendant’s assertion first, the occupied portion of the instant case cannot be the subject of prescriptive acquisition as administrative property, and it is the road of this case before D newly constructs the instant house.