국유재산사용료부과처분 무효확인등 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except for adding the judgment on the allegations emphasized by the plaintiff as stated in the following 2.3, the grounds for the admitting the judgment of the court of first instance under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the same shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The main part; 1. Grounds for dispositions;
A. The Plaintiff was authorized, respectively, to implement the Eunpyeong New Town Urban Development Project (hereinafter “instant project”) in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Mangdong-dong 3,495,248 square meters. The Plaintiff’s implementation plan on December 20, 2004 from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant zone 1”); and the implementation plan for the said zone 3 district (hereinafter “instant zone”) on December 28, 2006 from the head of the Seoul Metropolitan Government; and the implementation plan for the said zone 3 district (hereinafter “instant three district”).
(Public Notice of Seoul Special Metropolitan City No. 2004-415, No. 2006-458). (b)
The Defendant managed 82 lots, including the land 64-40 land, owned by the Republic of Korea located within the districts of this case 1 and 3, according to the delegation of the affairs concerning the management of State property by the Minister of National Defense, the managing authority of the Eunpyeong-gu Office (hereinafter “instant land”).
C. On July 17, 2009, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff the royalty of 4,491,205,630 won during the period from February 25, 2008, when each of the Plaintiff is anticipated to acquire the ownership of the instant land through the expropriation ruling, on the ground that the Plaintiff used the instant land for the instant project, and on the land belonging to the instant district No. 1, among the instant land, from August 16, 2005, the date of commencement of the construction work, to August 16, 2005, and on the land belonging to the instant district No. 3 (hereinafter “instant district No. 3”), from February 25, 2008, to August 31, 2009, to the date
(hereinafter referred to as “instant imposition disposition”) D.
The defendant did not pay the above usage fee to the plaintiff on April 17, 2012.