변상금부과처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing indemnity against the Plaintiff on December 21, 2018 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 2, 197, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase C & 146 square meters (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land”). According to the Plaintiff’s non-registration certificate No. 1 (registration certificate) of the Daegu District Court on June 7, 1977, the Plaintiff appears to be a clerical error in the Plaintiff’s certificate No. 3 (registration certificate) of the “No. 7, 1975” as “No. 7, 1977.”
The registration of ownership transfer is completed in accordance with No. 6746.
Meanwhile, on the ground of the Plaintiff’s land, an unauthorized building (hereinafter “instant building”) exists.
B. The Plaintiff’s land is adjoining to the area of 2,084 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), which is the ownership of the Republic of Korea. A part of the instant building is located on the ground of 36 square meters of the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”).
C. On December 21, 2018, the Defendant delegated the management, etc. of State property by the Republic of Korea to the Plaintiff, and issued a disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 1,985,670 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant portion of possession, which is State property, without any loan agreement, on the following grounds:
- On June 26, 2014, the period of occupancy (number of days) in the fiscal year of indemnity (number of days) 2014 216,620 - December 31, 2014 - 2015 427,840 - January 1, 2015 (189) - 427,840 - 438,940 - January 1, 2016 - 2017 458,040 - December 31, 2016 (365) 2017 - 458,040 - 1, 2040 - 2017 - 31, 2017 - 4, 2018 - 365, 2017 - With no ground for dispute as to the total of evidence No. 1505, Dec. 1, 2018>
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.
1 In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant calculated indemnity by deeming the Plaintiff’s unauthorized occupation area to be 36 square meters. However, according to the prior notification of indemnity and the voluntary explanation letter sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on August 1, 2014.