도로점용료부과처분취소
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant filed against the Plaintiff on November 7, 2014.
The reasoning of the judgment of the court in the first instance is as follows, and the relevant matters in the judgment of the court in the first instance are determined as follows, except for the parts determined additionally in the following paragraphs, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Three pages " March 13, 2015" shall be changed to " March 9, 2015".
Part 6, 10, 11, “the following protruding part” shall be read as “the next protruding part of the J land.”
The 7th parallel 7th parallel 5th parallel 7th parallel 5th parallel 7th parallel 5th parallel 7th parallel as follows:
【In accordance with this, on September 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) reduced the road occupation fee of KRW 1,142,972,82,820 (including value-added tax) in KRW 1,146,835,470 - 3,862,650 (including value-added tax); (b) 5,280,824,120 (including KRW 5,298,670,520 - KRW 17,846,40) in 2015; and (c) notified the Plaintiff that the reduced portion should be refunded (hereinafter “each of the instant reduction dispositions”).
(2) On September 18, 2015, the Plaintiff was notified of the instant permission for change and each of the instant reduction dispositions. The Plaintiff’s “instant disposition” in the 7th page 8 is regarded as “the remaining part of each of the instant dispositions”.
8. The 11th page "A does not go through the third section" and the 18th page " without going through the third section" are deleted from the 14th page.
12. From 19th to 14th 13th am as follows:
(C) First, we examine the method of calculating the occupation charges of the instant ground section.
As seen in the above facts, the drawings attached to the Plaintiff’s application for occupancy and use include the protruding part adjacent to G’s land in the occupied section of the ground section. The Defendant, which added the area of protruding part, 7,125.7 square meters to the area of protruding part, imposed the occupation and use fee on the Plaintiff on the basis of this. As such, the Defendant did so.