국유재산변상금부과고지처분취소
1. The Defendant’s imposition of indemnity amounting to KRW 91,261,200 on October 28, 2013 exceeds KRW 6,045,336, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on October 28, 2013.
1. On October 28, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 91,261,200 of indemnity on the land of 2,723.6 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) out of the Daejeon Seodong-dong 578-4 and 5,746.8 square meters, the State-owned land, pursuant to Article 72 of the State Property Act, to the Plaintiff on October 28, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied the land without permission from December 15, 201 to March 26, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), the fact that the Plaintiff did not have any dispute between the parties or is recognized by the statement in subparagraph 1.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion ① there was a change in the designation of the planned area of housing site development under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and the approval and announcement of the plan for the development of housing sites in the Seo-gu Daejeon Southern District on December 2003. Thus, the plaintiff who was awarded a contract with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation for the construction of housing site development can also use the land of this case in accordance with Article 11 of the Act on the Permission for Use of State Property under Article 11 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, and even if there was no explicit permission for use, it should be considered that
② During the process of construction of boundary stone, the Plaintiff temporarily stored relevant materials with a size equivalent to 180 square meters among the instant land from December 2, 2011 to March 2, 2012. The Defendant’s land size 2,723.6 square meters, which is the basis for calculating the instant disposition, includes temporary roads that are not installed by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant temporary roads”), and excessive disposition based on the result of the survey appraisal conducted by a person responsible for the Defendant’s part, based on the unilateral instruction and explanation, is unlawful.
B. According to the findings of fact finding as to Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 12 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence, and the fact finding as to the vice governor of the Daejeon and Chungcheongnam-do Headquarters of the Daejeon and Chungcheongnam-do Headquarters of this Court, the following facts are acknowledged:
(1) On December 15, 201, 201, the Daejeon Sung-dong 578-4 5,746.8 square meters, including the instant land, are Korea from the Daejeon Urban Corporation.