1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s indemnity of KRW 432,980 against the Plaintiff on December 30, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff owned the instant land of 117 square meters in Busan-gun, Busan-gun (hereinafter “instant land”). A part of the building on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) was built in a 25 square meters in which a part of the said building was owned by the Busan-gun, Busan-gun (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On July 2, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 480,750 (the imposition period: from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012) on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff, as the managing authority of the instant occupied portion, is occupying the instant occupied portion without permission (hereinafter “previous disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the previous disposition and filed an administrative appeal on September 5, 2013, and the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling revoking the previous disposition on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the acquisition by prescription is without merit, but the claim regarding the period from January 1, 2008 to July 8, 2008 among the previous dispositions is extinguished by prescription, and thus, the disposition imposing indemnity for the said period is unlawful.”

Accordingly, on December 30, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 432,980 (from July 9, 2008 to December 31, 2012) on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 2 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and images, the court's cadastral appraisal of the directors of the Busan and Ulsan Metropolitan City Headquarters, Busan and Ulsan Metropolitan City Headquarters and its branch offices, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff built the instant building around 1973, and subsequently purchased the instant land on April 13, 198 and completed the registration of ownership transfer. At the time, the Plaintiff knew that the ownership of the occupied portion, which is the site of the instant building, was also transferred.

Thus, the plaintiff is occupying part of the case.