변상금부과처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 42,167,300 of indemnity against the Plaintiffs on July 14, 2016 is revoked.
2...
Details of the disposition
The Plaintiffs inherited a building owned by the deceased E (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) on February 16, 2012, f.106 square meters and above ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 6, 2012.
From August 6, 2012 to August 7, 2015, the Defendant imposed KRW 42,167,300 on the Plaintiffs’ indemnity, on July 14, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiffs owned an unauthorized building (hereinafter “instant unauthorized building”) constructed on 11.8 square meters in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant road”), which is owned by the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, and occupied the said road.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on September 26, 2016, but was dismissed on November 28, 2016.
【In the absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the number of family cards attached with a serial number), and the overall purport of the argument of the instant disposition is legitimate, H leased the instant building from the deceased and operated the restaurant. On June 2010, H, the husband of H, who was the husband of the instant restaurant, installed the instant building without permission on the following grounds: (a) there is a need for a warehouse for the instant restaurant business; and (b) there is a need for a warehouse for the instant restaurant business, and (c) there was a series of alkinium pipe and an Akylry installed on the outer wall of
Therefore, since the owner of the instant unauthorized building is I, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs occupied and used the instant road, which is the site for the instant unauthorized building.
Even if the plaintiffs occupied and used the road of this case, the area of the building without permission of this case is limited to 11.8 square meters, and the plaintiffs, the heir of the deceased, were unaware of the existence of the building without permission of this case before receiving the notification of unauthorized Occupancy and Use of the road of this case from the defendant. Thus, the plaintiffs were intentionally negligent in occupying and using the road of this case.