1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 2, 2011, the Plaintiffs acquired 1/4 shares of each of the buildings E, Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, 669§³ and its ground, and operate a hotel from that time to that time (hereinafter “instant hotel”).

B. From May 9, 2012 to December 30, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 71,19,040 for each indemnity (hereinafter “instant disposition”), pursuant to Article 81 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”), on May 8, 2017, on the grounds that the Plaintiffs occupied 64 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) out of 77 square meters of Seoul, Guro-gu Seoul, Seoul, which is owned by Seoul, without permission, while operating the instant hotel (hereinafter “instant hotel”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. 관계법령 ▣ 공유재산법 제81조(변상금의 징수) ① 지방자치단체의 장은 사용ㆍ수익허가나 대부계약 없이 공유재산 또는 물품을 사용ㆍ수익하거나 점유(사용ㆍ수익허가나 대부계약 기간이 끝난 후 다시 사용ㆍ수익허가나 대부계약 없이 공유재산 또는 물품을 계속 사용ㆍ수익하거나 점유하는 경우를 포함하며, 이하 "무단점유"라 한다)를 한 자에 대하여 대통령령으로 정하는 바에 따라 공유재산 또는 물품에 대한 사용료 또는 대부료의 100분의 120에 해당하는 금액(이하 "변상금"이라 한다)을 징수한다.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' arguments do not have any possession of the land of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Article 81(1) of the Public Property Act provides that an indemnity shall be collected from a person who uses, uses, or occupies public property without legitimate permission or a contract.

Generally, the term "Possession" is in terms of social norms.