1. On July 2, 2017, the Defendant’s imposition of indemnity of KRW 14,496,90,000 against the Plaintiff exceeds KRW 14,500,00.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The defendant shall be a management agency of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government road B, Seoul Metropolitan Government, of 5432.9 square meters.

B. Of the above roads, there is an unauthorized building constructed around 1957 on the ground of 18.7 square meters (hereinafter “instant road”) and 19.8 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) owned by the Plaintiff, Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, Dongjak-gu (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”).

(D) The building ledger shall be registered as the owner; hereinafter referred to as “instant building”).

On July 2, 2017, the Defendant imposed KRW 14,504,00 of the indemnity on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied the instant road from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2017 without obtaining permission to occupy and use the instant building as the owner of the instant building.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on July 12, 2017, but the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on October 16, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (including branch numbers for those with virtual numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 4 video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The owner of the instant building asserted by the Plaintiff is not the Plaintiff but D.

Even if the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant building, the extinctive prescription of partial indemnity was completed.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. 1) In an administrative litigation to which the provision of the Civil Procedure Act of the relevant legal doctrine applies mutatis mutandis to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the instant building, the burden of proof is, in principle, distributed among the parties in accordance with the general principles of civil procedure. In an administrative litigation, the Defendant who asserts the legality of disposition

As to the legality of the defendant's specific disposition, the defendant asserts.