변상금부과처분취소
1. The part against the plaintiff against the defendant Korea Asset Management Corporation in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
Defendant.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to the above part is that “47.65 square meters of a building area” in the second line No. 10 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “5,099.5 square meters of a building area” in the third line No. 12 shall be deleted; and “5,099.6 square meters of a building area” in the third line shall be deemed as “5,099.6 square meters” in addition to “5,099.6 square meters”, the second line No. 8 through No. 4,099.9 square meters of a building area is the same as the entry of “
2. The reasoning of the court’s argument concerning the above part is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since this court’s reasoning is the same as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to adding the following parts to the fifth and nine parts of the judgment of the court of first instance.
The head of the Gu of Seoul Special Metropolitan City (5) violates the principle of trust and good faith to impose indemnity on the Plaintiff on the ground that the acquisition by prescription of the Plaintiff’s possession of the land No. 2 (18 m2, 10.5 m2, a total of the 10.5 m2 m2, which is located on the boundary, among the 32-2 m2-2 road and 181.8 m2, which is located on the land owned by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is located on the boundary of the 31-34 m2, 1,252.8 m2, and the 3.2m2m2 m2, which is located on the 18m2, which is located on the 444-1,209m2, which is located on the land owned by the State, even if the ownership transfer registration obligation was completed
3. Determination
A. In full view of each of the statements in evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, and 2-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, the original original vocational company (hereinafter “original vocational”) was lawful as to the imposition of indemnity by the Defendant Korea Asset Management Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant”) and the purport of the entire pleadings, around February 25, 1960.