1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 783,700 of indemnity against the Plaintiff on October 16, 2017 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 18, 1965, the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government completed the registration of ownership preservation as to the land of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B road B, 671.4 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); and thereafter the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant land on June 11, 1997 by Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On June 24, 198, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on each of the same dates with respect to the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 266.4 square meters, D 1.9 square meters, 11.9 square meters (hereinafter “C land” and “D”) and the two-story buildings adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. On December 16, 2015, the Defendant imposed indemnity of KRW 2,255,100 (the imposition period from December 1, 2010 to November 30, 2015) under Article 72 of the Road Act on the ground that the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building, occupied the instant land, which is a road without obtaining permission to occupy and use the said land, on the grounds that the part of the instant building was over the boundary of the instant land C and D, which is the site on which the pertinent land was registered.

(hereinafter referred to as “previous Disposition”). D.

On August 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the previous disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court 2016Gudan50696, and the said court rendered a judgment revoking the previous disposition on the ground that “the previous disposition based on the premise that the instant land is a road under the Road Act is unlawful, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant land was determined and publicly announced as a route or a road zone under the Road Act, or that it was going through the procedure under the Urban Planning Act or the Urban Redevelopment Act,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

E. After October 16, 2017, the Defendant: (a) on the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied the instant portion without permission, on the land of the instant building.