변상금부과처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 89,801,200 against Plaintiff A on June 9, 2015 is revoked.
2. The Defendant’s act on January 2015
1. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of the building in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”).
(Share: Plaintiff A 3/9, Plaintiff B, C, and Plaintiff D 2/9). On June 9, 2015, the Defendant: (a) occupied the Plaintiff’s 15.4 square meters of FF road 523.3 square meters (the part on which the drawing is indicated; hereinafter “the instant land part”) on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied the instant building site without permission (from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2015) (the imposition period) pursuant to Article 72 of the Road Act, the Defendant imposed KRW 89,801,200 for indemnity.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 18, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The artificial property, such as a road as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, is an administrative property only when it is designated by the Act and subordinate statutes, is determined to be used for public purposes as an administrative disposition, or when it is actually used as administrative property.
In particular, when a road is in the form of a road and is determined and publicly announced as a route or a road zone under the Road Act, or when a road is constructed through the procedure as prescribed by the Urban Planning Act or the Urban Redevelopment Act, there is an act of commencing public use as a public object. Thus, it cannot be said that the land is an administrative property as a road solely on the ground that the land category is a road and is registered in
(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da231439 Decided October 27, 2016, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da41533 Decided October 15, 2009, etc.). The mere evidence of Evidence Nos. 2-13, 16, 17, and evidence Nos. 1-6 (including a provisional number) cannot be recognized as constituting a road that is a public property, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Rather, in view of the same evidence and witness G’s testimony, the entire purport of the pleading is shown, the instant land was used as the instant building site or restaurant site since before 1990, and H District Redevelopment Project on July 16, 1995.