1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 19, 2012, the Defendant imposed an indemnity of KRW 1.32,9480,000 (from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2011, pursuant to Article 72 of the State Property Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the pertinent State-owned land without obtaining permission for use (hereinafter referred to as “the key land among the State-owned land”), among 46,636 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant State-owned land”), which is a State-owned property, on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used it without obtaining permission for use.

B. On June 11, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. On January 18, 2013, the Plaintiff received a ruling that “The portion exceeding the indemnity calculated by the period of service from May 6, 2009 to December 31, 2011, of the disposition imposing the above indemnity, shall be revoked.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) 681,539,170 won of the amount of compensation remaining after the said adjudication has not been revoked. The ground for recognition is the fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(a)be occupied or used without permission;

On August 2, 2004, the non-party B Association (hereinafter "the non-party B Association") occupied, used, and delegated the state-owned land of this case to the Plaintiff on or around May 6, 2009 after obtaining approval for the use of state-owned land from the Seoul Regional Headquarters of the Korea National Railroad. The Plaintiff only occupied, and most of the state-owned land of this case was occupied, used without permission, by the non-party C and other third parties, not the Plaintiff, and the Defendant was aware of this fact. Thus, it did not request the Plaintiff to pay any royalty for several years.

Therefore, even though the defendant accepted the plaintiff's free use, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful since the plaintiff's request was made to the defendant for free loan and preferential sale of state property at around May 201, and thus, the compensation is imposed upon the defendant.

(b).