공공용지무단점유에따른변상금부과처분취소
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Defendant imposed KRW 5,447,500 on the Plaintiffs, based on Article 81 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act, on March 4, 2019, on the ground that a building of Yongsan-gu Seoul, Seoul, which owns one-half shares of the Plaintiffs each of whom is owned by the Defendant, caused the Plaintiffs to occupy the above part of the crime (hereinafter the instant disposition) on the ground that the building of Yongsan-gu, Seoul, which is owned by the Defendant and owned by the Defendant, was occupied without permission, on the ground that the said part of the crime was occupied by the Defendant.
B. On June 7, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation, asserting that the instant disposition imposing indemnity on the ground of an illegal occupation was unlawful, even though it was merely an improvement of the safety and aesthetic issues by putting the stairs and flowers over the building having been used for a long time as a police box, which was originally used as a building.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As to the defense prior to the merits, the Defendant’s defense to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful because the period for filing the lawsuit is too excessive.
According to Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a revocation lawsuit shall be instituted within 90 days from the date when the disposition, etc. is known, and if the written disposition is delivered lawfully, it is presumed that the disposition was known at that time, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du3850, Aug. 27, 2002). In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the items in subparagraphs 1-1 and 2-2, it can be recognized that the plaintiff lawfully delivered the written notice of compensation for private property that imposes the indemnity of this case to the plaintiffs on March 7, 2019, and since the plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 7, 2019, which is 90 days after the lapse of 90 days from the plaintiffs, the period for filing the lawsuit of this case was set.
The defendant's defense of safety is justified.