공유재산변상금부과처분취소등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition as follows. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful in light of the above circumstances, since the Plaintiff was not in possession of the Plaintiff as the Defendant took measures to remove livestock pens and bury livestock in order to prevent the spread of the foot-and-mouth station on December 30, 2010.
Therefore, even if the Plaintiff failed to use the housing and livestock shed facilities on the ground of the instant site for its intended purpose, so long as the housing and livestock shed facilities on the ground of the instant site are owned by the Plaintiff, it cannot be denied that the Plaintiff occupies the instant site, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 1,593,580,000 (No. 4-1 through 4 of the evidence No. 4), and in full view of all the circumstances, including the fact that the Defendant could not lend the instant site to a third party due to the housing and livestock shed facilities existing on the instant site, the instant disposition is justifiable.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.