하천점용허가명의변경절차이행
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is dismissed.
3...
1. Presumed factual basis
A. On September 27, 1995, the head of Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter “instant permission to occupy and use rivers”) issued the following permission to occupy and use rivers (hereinafter “instant permission to use rivers”).
(The occupation and use period of this case is extended. The occupation and use period of this case is extended. The occupation and use period of this case is extended. The occupation and use period of the Defendant C occupation or the installation place of a structure: The occupation and use area of the landing place in Gyeonggi-gu: The occupation and use area of the landing place: the area of 62m2 and the attached 31.26m2: From September 26, 1995 to December 31, 198.
B. On June 5, 2002, the head of Pyeongtaek-si changed the purpose of the occupation and use of the instant occupation and use of rivers to the river wharf for water-related leisure business.
C. On April 6, 2015, the head of Pyeongtaek-si changed the name of the person permitted to occupy and use the instant river from Defendant C to Defendant B. D.
On September 26, 2016, the head of Pyeongtaek-Gun issued a permit to change occupancy and use (hereinafter “instant permit to occupy and use a river”) on the following grounds: (a) the area of the instant permit to occupy and use a river is changed (the area of a facility is 364.56 square meters, the area of public waters is 562.56 square meters, and the area of public waters is 780 square meters, respectively).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 3, 23 (including virtual number), Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. On September 27, 1995, the Plaintiff was granted the permission to occupy and use the instant land under the name of Defendant C as the actual permission to occupy and use the instant land.
On April 6, 2015, Defendant C transferred the name of the permission to occupy and use this case to Defendant B, which is null and void as a false declaration of intent made by the Defendants.
The Plaintiff terminated the title trust with Defendant C on the permission for occupation and use of the instant complaint through the service of the duplicate of the instant complaint.
Therefore, Defendant C shall change the name on the permission for occupation and use of the instant case to the Plaintiff.