부설주차장 설치의무 면제비 반환거부처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Basic Facts
B and C entered into a lease agreement to lease the instant land between the owner of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Large 618m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) and the Dudic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Madidic”), around January 2012, with a view to building and operating an officetel model housing, which is a temporary building, on the instant land.
On March 29, 2012, the above B, C, and C C (hereinafter “reported”) were the owner of the above temporary building and filed a report on the construction of a temporary building with the head of Mapo-gu Office pursuant to Article 20(2) of the Building Act (amended by Act No. 12246, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply).
On the other hand, a person who intends to build a building on the instant land shall establish an attached parking lot pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Parking Lot Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same). On April 25, 2012, the reporter was to pay the expenses incurred in installing the attached parking lot in lieu of the installation of the attached parking lot pursuant to Article 19(5) of the Parking Lot Act. The head of Mapo-gu notified B of the payment of KRW 201,60,000 of the expenses incurred in installing the attached parking lot on the same day and received the payment from B.
On April 26, 2012, the head of Mapo-gu issued a certificate of completion of construction of a temporary building to the retention period of the temporary building by January 31, 2013 with respect to the report filed by the reporter.
The retention period of the above temporary building was extended to January 31, 2014.
In addition, on January 29, 2014, the Republic of Mapo reported the destruction of the above temporary building to the head of Mapo-gu office.
(1) On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted that, on July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff received from the reporter a claim against the Defendant for the return of the installation cost of an attached parking lot for overpaid payment from the reporter, and filed a claim against the Defendant for the return of KRW 179,550,000 out of the installation cost of the attached parking lot paid by B, but the Defendant filed a claim for the return of KRW 201,60,000 out of the installation cost of the attached parking lot for the attached parking lot.