점용료부과처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project partnership established for the purpose of implementing the housing reconstruction and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) in the total area of 82,650.5 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant project zone”) in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daegu-dong, Seo-gu, and 131-1 and 47 square meters (hereinafter “instant project zone”). The Defendant approved the instant rearrangement project and announced it on December 27, 2004.
B. The instant improvement project was approved on February 23, 201, and the land category located within the instant project zone is referred to as “the instant road.” The total area of 4,122.8 square meters included in the instant project was gratuitously transferred to the Plaintiff, the project implementer, within the scope of the installation cost of a road newly constructed pursuant to Article 65(2) and (4) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 7392, Mar. 18, 2005; hereinafter “Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act”) on the same day.
C. On January 14, 2015, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant road during the period of the rearrangement project; and (b) imposed KRW 188,432,530 for road occupation and use fees in the year 2010, which falls under the occupation and use fees from January 1, 2010 to February 23, 2011, the completion date of which was authorization; and (c) imposed KRW 16,175,060 for road occupation and use fees in the year 201, respectively.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The former Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas (amended by Act No. 7392 of March 18, 2005; hereinafter “former Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas”).
Article 32(5) provides that "where a project implementer is deemed to have obtained permission to occupy and use a road by obtaining authorization for project implementation, the fees imposed for the relevant authorization, permission, etc. shall be exempted," and the aforementioned exempted fees, etc. shall be exempted.