beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.10.10 2018구합107748

도로점용허가부관취소

Text

1. Article 2 of the terms and conditions of permission granted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on September 13, 2018.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Since 2008, the Plaintiff had been installed and operated with the permission to occupy and use the 6,534 electric poles within the road zone of the State and public land under the jurisdiction of the Defendant.

However, in 2018, it was found that the previous owner of the Plaintiff was another 6,390.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for change of permission to occupy and use a road to train different poles as above, and the Defendant attached to the Plaintiff on September 13, 2018.

1. The same content as indicated in the permission to occupy and use the road (hereinafter “instant permission”) was granted.

C. When granting the instant permission to occupy and use the road, the Defendant imposed an additional note that “I will not raise any objection to the request of the management agency for relocation of the permitted facilities, and will transfer the full amount of the facilities to the expense of the person who has obtained the permission” (hereinafter “instant additional note”).

The Plaintiff was exempted from 50% of the occupation charges on roads by the Defendant.

E. As the development project of the International Science Bluxt in the Defendant’s jurisdiction has been promoted, the head of the Daejeon Regional Construction and Management Administration implemented the construction project of the International Science Bluxt Access Road (hereinafter “instant road construction”).

As the road works in this case were implemented, the relocation construction for the part of the previous week installed by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the relocation construction of the previous week”) was required, and there is a dispute as to who should bear the cost of the relocation construction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the father of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without substantial connection with the permission to occupy and use the instant road against the Road Act or the Electric Utility Act.