부당이득반환 청구의 소
1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,152,160 as well as 6% per annum from March 11, 2016 to July 4, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
On March 25, 2010, the head of the Geum River flood control office delegated permission to use river water from the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (former Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs), which is a national river, and the head of the Geum River flood control office, with permission to use river water from Hocheon and the permission to occupy and use.
The place of permission used for the purpose of use is "Yeong-ri 775-4 in the Dong-gun of Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do," "from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2015," "10,000 cubic meters," and the purpose of use is "industrial water".
The Defendant did not impose a fee for river occupation and use of river water (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “road occupation and use fee, etc.”) on the Plaintiff during the first half of 2016, and imposed the fee by dividing it into the annual occupation and use fee, etc. from the first half of 2011 to the second half of 2016.
Of them, the 201 portion at issue in the instant case is KRW 4,152,160, and KRW 174,944,50, and KRW 174,500, imposed on February 29, 2016 (in combination, “the occupation fees, etc. in this case”).
On March 10, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the full amount of river occupancy fees in the year of 2011, and the full amount of river water usage fees in the year of 2011 on March 30, 2016.
The relevant Acts and subordinate statutes applicable to this case are as shown in the attached Form.
According to Article 5 of the Ordinance on Collection of River and Occupancy Charges, etc. for Small Rivers, Sejong Special Self-Governing City and the Ordinance on Collection of Occupancy Charges, etc. for Small Rivers (a short name: Sejong Metropolitan City Ordinance), the occupation fees, etc. in this case may be imposed and collected from January 1, 201, which is the beginning date of the year.
Therefore, since January 1, 2011, the period of extinctive prescription under Article 82(1) of the Local Finance Act has expired and the five years have elapsed since December 31, 2016.
Nevertheless, the Defendant imposed the instant occupation charges, etc. on the Plaintiff in February 2016, and the said collection disposition was made against a person who is not liable for payment, and such disposition has a significant and apparent defect and thus is null and void.
Therefore, the defendant raises objection to the plaintiff.