국유재산사용허가연장불허처분취소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On or around June 2008, the Plaintiff obtained permission to use the land of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”) with the period from June 25, 2008 to December 31, 2010 from June 25, 2008.
The Plaintiff obtained permission for use of the instant land from January 1, 201 to December 31, 2014 from the Defendant around January 201.
B. On November 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for extension of the permitted period for use of the instant land. On November 4, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to permit the extension of the permitted period for use of the instant land to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff is delinquent in paying approximately KRW 360 million for the Plaintiff’s parking lot in his management and the fees (including compensation) for the use of approximately 536 square meters for the Seoul Western-gu D Railroad site (including compensation).”
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The defendant's judgment on the main defense against the defendant's main defense is unlawful after the period for filing the lawsuit of this case expires.
In light of the following circumstances that can be known from the overall purport of the statement and pleading No. 7, namely, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a written disposition indicated on the instant disposition on November 4, 2014, the Plaintiff’s wife received a written disposition on November 5, 2014, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on May 26, 2015, it appears that the Plaintiff was aware of the instant disposition around November 5, 2014, and that the instant lawsuit was filed on May 26, 2015, which was 90 days after the lapse of 90 days from the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant lawsuit was unlawful after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit.
After the receipt of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff demanded E, an employee belonging to the Defendant, to extend the permitted period of use of the instant land by telephone, and E, thereby becoming aware of it.