1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant’s compensation for public property to the Plaintiff on May 11, 2015.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the grounds for the decision of the court of first instance is the same as the pertinent part of the grounds for the decision of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a)a Party’s assertion; and

B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is that the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2)

C. (1) Determination 1) The requirements for the imposition of indemnity under the Public Property Act, which the Defendant cited as the grounds for the disposition of this case, by the Act on the Management of Public Property (hereinafter “Public Property Act”).

Article 81(1) of the Act provides that the head of a local government shall collect the amount equivalent to 120/100 of the usage fees or rent of public property or commodities from a person who has used or profited from, or has occupied public property or commodities without permission for use or profit-making or loan contract (including where he/she continues to use or profit from, or has occupied public property or commodities without permission for use or profit-making or loan contract after the expiration of the period of permission for use or profit-making or loan contract; hereinafter referred to as "un

In light of the language and text of the above provision, the compensation is imposed when the other party to the disposition uses, benefits from, or possesses public property without permission. Thus, the compensation cannot be imposed on the person who disposed of public property, etc. without permission. Since it constitutes an infringement of ownership under private law and constitutes a tort against the local government that is the owner, it is only possible for the local government to claim compensation, etc. based on the tort against the disposal person. 2) In this case, the compensation is returned to this case, and the Defendant did so to the Plaintiff.