도로점용료부과처분취소
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Basic Facts
On October 4, 2001, the Plaintiff was a stock company with the business purpose of multi-family housing management business, real estate management business, etc., and was established as the trade name “Seongpo Industries Development Co., Ltd.,” and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s trade name was changed to “LiaWD Co., Ltd.” on May 13, 2003, and “Gina Asset Management Co., Ltd.” on December 27, 2012.
On June 2004, the Plaintiff succeeded to the right to occupy and use the road from June 3, 2002 to December 31, 2007 (hereinafter “instant permit to occupy and use the road”), which is ① 703-2, 703-2, 703-3, 17.5m2, and ③ 768-3, 10m2, 768-3, 468-5, 768-5, 10m2, 775-1, 13.28m28, 6m2, 775, 775m2, and 98m2 of the building managed by the Plaintiff, for each occupation and use purpose, from June 3, 2002 to December 31, 2007 (Evidence 1). Since then, the period of the above permit to occupy and use and use the road was extended in sequence to December 31, 2012.
(B) From February 2007 to March 201, the Defendant imposed a road occupation fee according to the instant permission from the end of February, 2007 to the end of March, 201 on the Plaintiff (mutual stock company). However, the Plaintiff failed to pay each of the road occupation fees listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the road occupation fees of this case”) among the road occupation fees of this case.
On December 1, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a seizure order (No. 3) to the effect that “the Plaintiff did not pay each of the instant occupation and use fees and seized five cars owned by the Plaintiff.” As such, the Defendant paid each of the said occupation and use fees or delivered the said automobiles.”
【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap's 1, 3 evidence, Eul's 1, 2, Eul's 9 through 15, and the purport and judgment of the whole pleadings.