변상금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff, as a lessee of the first floor, second floor, and underground floor of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground Building B (hereinafter “instant building”), is operating “C” in the foregoing leased part (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).
B. On July 27, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 78,366,700 (the imposition period between June 20, 2010 and June 19, 2015) on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used 50.4 square meters (hereinafter “instant parking lot site”) among the roads of Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, a Si maintenance business entity, as the parking lot site for the instant restaurant (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 2 and 9 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the Plaintiff did not exclusively use the instant parking lot site, and thus cannot be deemed to have occupied and used the instant parking lot.
While parking lines are located on the instant parking lot site, the Plaintiff did not actively provide the instant parking lot site to the instant restaurant users as a parking lot site, and did not restrict the parking of the general public and neighboring residents.
See The Plaintiff was not a person who installed a parking lot on the instant parking lot without permission, and merely a lessee who leases part of the instant building with the knowledge that the previous parking lot was an attached parking lot to the instant building, and thus, it is unlawful to impose indemnity on the Plaintiff, who is only a lessee, without imposing indemnity on the former owner or the current owner of the instant building, which is the parking lot installer.
Secondly, the Defendant has left the instant parking lot site without any management for a long time, and the Plaintiff is merely the lessee who has already leased the instant building in a state where the parking lot facility was installed.