이행강제금 독촉처분 등 취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff joined the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing KRW 50 million for non-performance penalty, and subsequently, sought the cancellation of the disposition imposing property seizure on November 16, 2012 on the ground that B paid KRW 50 million for non-performance penalty to the Defendant was paid by the Plaintiff. The court of first instance rejected the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing the non-performance penalty and the claim for the return of the non-performance penalty on the ground that the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing the non-performance penalty is illegal, and dismissed on the ground that the part of the claim for revocation
As a result, the plaintiff appealed only to the part of the disposition imposing charges for compelling compliance, it is limited to the legitimacy of the disposition imposing charges for compelling compliance.
2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. The defendant's decision on the defendant's defense prior to the merits was made on the disposition of non-performance penalty (the disposition No. 1 of this case) against which no administrative appeal has been filed, and the lawsuit has been filed more than one year and six months after such disposition was made, and accordingly, the defendant raises
In light of the records, the instant disposition was served on the Plaintiff on or around March 19, 2012, and the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on September 16, 2013, which was about 90 days from the date of becoming aware of an administrative disposition (Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act). As such, the part concerning the claim for revocation of the instant disposition No. 1 is unlawful, since it is apparent that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on September 16, 2013, which was about 90 days from the date of the filing of the lawsuit.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the defect in the first disposition of this case is significant and apparent, and declares the invalidity of the first disposition as a matter of course.