국공유재산사용료 부과처분 취소
1. Attached Table 1 Nos. 2 and 3. of the Defendant’s disposition on October 25, 2016 on the imposition of State-owned or public property damages against the Plaintiff.
Basic facts are as follows: (a) from around 2002, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Korea Rail Network Authority for the use of 163 square meters for the land B (hereinafter “instant permitted land”); (b) from around that time, the Plaintiff runs the mid-term lease business, etc. with the trade name “C” on the above land from around that time.
On June 7, 2016, the Defendant, on the ground that “the Plaintiff occupied and used the land of this case from June 7, 201 to June 6, 2016, 126.1 square meters out of the 69.3 square meters of the 00 square meters of the 1,758.7 square meters of the 1,758 square meters of the 1,758.7 square meters of the 126.3 square meters of the 126.1 square meters of the 185.7 square meters of the 185.7 square meters of the 185.7 square meters of the 182 square meters of the Masan-si, the State-owned land”, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the State-owned property or public property prior to the imposition of the indemnity totaling KRW 14,676,760 due to the use of the land of this case without permission.
On October 6, 2016, the Defendant accepted part of the Plaintiff’s opinion and determined that “the Plaintiff occupied and used each of the lands listed in the separate sheet No. 1,” and issued a notice of scheduled imposition of indemnity (No. 631,500 won in total) as to the Plaintiff’s use of each of the lands listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”). On October 25, 2016, the Defendant issued a notice of scheduled imposition (No. 631,50 won in total) of indemnity (No. 7,631,50 won in total) to the Plaintiff on October 25, 2016. On December 1, 2016, the Defendant imposed indemnity of KRW 7,631,500 in total (No. 7,205,810 won in total and KRW 16,530,272,300 in total). The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of late 15, 2016.
【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 6-1, 6-2, Eul evidence 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 8-1, and Eul evidence 8-2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's use of the land of this case has been permitted around 2002, and until now since that time.