변상금부과처분취소
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 judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's main grounds for appeal at the end of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in the following 2. Thus, this case shall be quoted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant in 197 to exchange or exchange part of the access road of this case and the 362 square meters of the 362 square meters of the Hanam-si Road (hereinafter “D”) owned by the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff is duly entitled to use the access road of this case, the part on the premise that the Plaintiff occupied or used the access road of this case without permission should be revoked.
(b) "Indemnity" in the State Property Act means a person who uses, benefits from, or occupies State property without permission for use or loan contract (including a person who continues to use, benefits from, or occupies State property without permission for use or loan contract after the expiration of the period for permission for use
The term "unauthorized occupant" means a single occupant;
The amount to be imposed (Article 2 subparagraph 9) on the person who occupies the State property without permission shall be collected from the person who occupies the State property without permission the head of the central government agency, etc., in an amount equivalent to 120/100 of the usage fees or loan charges of the State property (Article 72 (1)).
The Plaintiff has been occupying and using the access road of this case, which is a State property, from July 14, 2012 to the access road; and on October 10, 2017, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff the imposition of indemnity of KRW 12,663,60, out of the instant disposition, on the grounds that the Plaintiff occupied and used the access road of this case from July 15, 2012 to July 14, 2017, the imposition period for the Plaintiff was from July 15, 2012 to July 14, 2017. As such, the Plaintiff’s imposition of indemnity of KRW 12,63,60, out of the instant disposition