변상금부과처분취소
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance to the following. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of
2. 이 법원에서 고쳐쓰는 부분 ▣ 제1심판결서 3쪽 13행의 “대한미국”을 “대한민국”으로 고친다.
3. Additional determination by this Court
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal 1) confirmed that the instant compulsory adjustment had the authority to justify the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land, or granted a new authority. (2) Since the notice and receipt for payment of land usage fees issued by the Defendant each year to the Plaintiff according to the instant compulsory adjustment states that the details of the instant compulsory adjustment are “land rental fees”, the Plaintiff has the authority to justify the Plaintiff’s possession.
3) According to the text and text of the instant forced adjustment, “land use fee shall be calculated by 20% of the amount calculated by subtracting management expenses from the external management office of the U.S. Armed Forces paid to the Plaintiff by the usfk, so land use fee shall be zero won in the event usfk moved. 4) The transfer of usfk is subject to consultation between the Defendant and usfk, and thus, the Plaintiff’s possession cannot be deemed unlawful.
5) In light of the claim for renewal and the claim for purchase under Article 643 of the Civil Act, the position to justify possession is recognized. 6) The initial date of the period subject to the disposition in this case was December 1, 2014, which was the first day of December 1, 2014, is recognized to be legitimate possession until that day. Thus, the disposition in this case is unlawful, and the Plaintiff’s possessory right is lost through the disposition imposing indemnity. Thus, until that time,
7) In light of the fact that the acquisition of negligence by the bona fide occupant is recognized, the instant disposition of imposing indemnity is unlawful. 8) Article 10 of the Free Loan Agreement is unlawful.