1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing indemnity amounting to KRW 341,540,540,540, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on July 12, 2013 exceeds KRW 180,205,440.

1. After 2001, the Plaintiff used and occupied 40 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) out of 12,632.3 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “C village”) owned as a storage for recycling goods. The Defendant, the property management authority, on July 12, 2013, issued a disposition to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land without permission from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 201, imposing 342,740,540 won of indemnity under the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”) on the ground that the instant land was occupied without permission; thereafter, the Defendant did not have any dispute between the parties to the instant disposition and the number No. 9,540 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). Upon the reduction decision of indemnity on March 13, 2014, the Defendant did not state the amount of indemnity as KRW 341,540,540 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) on October 201, 201, the Defendant notified nine recyclables disposal business operators operated by C community residents, including the Plaintiff, that the base area for calculating the amount of compensation imposed from the past 2006 to 2010 would be erroneous and thus the additional indemnity for the pertinent period would be imposed. The Defendant made a verbal agreement that the Defendant’s houses and public officials would not impose additional indemnity upon the completion of the relocation of the place of business and the transfer of land until November 30, 2011.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s trust and the purchase of the site for relocation of the place of business on November 14, 201 completed the relocation of the last seal on or before November 30, 201, but the Plaintiff completed the completion of the work by removing all the remaining containers, etc. on December 1, 2011, on the following day with the public official’s understanding on the risks of de facto depreciation on the said day. Thus, the instant disposition imposing indemnity against the Plaintiff who complied with the agreement is unlawful in violation of the principle of protection of trust.

(ii).