1. The part concerning the claim for cancellation of the disposition imposing late payment charges in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s June 29, 2012 Plaintiff B.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff A is the owner of the land and the ground building in Suwon-si, Suwon-si C, and the Plaintiff B is the owner of the D site and the ground building in Suwon-si, Suwon-si.

B. The Defendant: (a) issued a disposition imposing KRW 22,192,510 of the indemnity (hereinafter “instant disposition”) from April 4, 2006 to December 31, 2010 on the premise that the Plaintiff occupied and used 43 square meters among the 79 square meters in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) issued a disposition imposing KRW 20,249,600 for the indemnity period from July 30, 207 to July 29, 2012 on the premise that the Plaintiff occupied and used 36 square meters of the instant land (hereinafter “instant disposition”) under the premise that the Plaintiff occupied and used 36 square meters of the instant land.

C. On May 16, 2014, the Defendant issued a notice of payment of indemnity and late payment charge (20,249,600 won and late payment charge 3,453,520 won and late payment charge 23,703,120 won in total, 22,192,510 won and late payment charge 6,110,540 won in total, and 28,303,050 won in total, with respect to the Plaintiff A) to the Plaintiffs.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 6, 11 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. (1) Since the defendant's assertion of the first and second dispositions of this case concerning the first and second dispositions of this case are significant and apparent defects as follows, the above dispositions are null and void.

① Although the building owned by the Plaintiffs did not intrude the boundary of the instant land, and even if the building owned by the Plaintiffs infringed on the boundary and occupied the instant land, the Plaintiffs acquired the instant land by prescription, and thus, the instant dispositions Nos. 1 and 2 are null and void.

At the time of the Defendant’s first and second disposition, the instant disposition Nos. 1 and 2 was made on the premise that the building owned by the Plaintiffs infringed on the boundary of the instant land, and submitted in the instant lawsuit.