국유재산사용허가취소및원상회복처분 취소 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
On September 2, 2010, the Defendant: (a) publicly announced a bid to select a user of and to use the pertinent site as a 31,206 square meters in Geumcheon-gu, Busan Metropolitan City; (b) 437 square meters in Yangsan-si; (c) 2,108 square meters in total; and (d) 2,108 square meters in total (hereinafter “instant site”), which is a state-owned property managed by the Defendant; and (b) subsequently, conducted the bidding; (c) selected G as a successful bidder around October 1, 2010; and (d) allowed G to use and benefit from the instant site for five years from November 1, 2010 to November 1, 2015.
G on June 21, 2011, the Defendant changed the use of the instant site to a warehouse, and requested the licensee to change the use to the Plaintiff of G’s wife (former name was B) respectively.
On June 21, 2011, the defendant approved the application for change of use of G on June 21, 201, and approved the application for change of name of G on December 23, 201.
On March 17, 2015, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff on the instant site that the Plaintiff would be expected to revoke the permission for use of State-owned property on the grounds that the risk of fire and the safe operation of trains would be impeded. On April 3, 2015, the Defendant issued a hearing on April 3, 2015. On April 6, 2015, the Defendant revoked the permission for use of State-owned property on the instant site pursuant to Article 36(1)5 of the State Property Act and Article 11 subparag. 6, 20 subparag. 3, and 4 of the State Property Act, and requested the Plaintiff to reinstate the instant site by May 6, 2015 pursuant to Article 38 of the State Property Act.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for adjudication. However, on December 24, 2015, the said commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 16, 17, and 22, each of the statements of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 17, and 22, and the purport of the whole pleadings of this case.