Plaintiff

Chuncheon Market

June 22, 2012

1. The Defendant:

A. Disposition on November 12, 2007 on the succession to the rights and obligations of the river occupation and use permit granted to Nonparty 1:

B. Disposition on December 18, 2007 by succession to the rights and obligations of the river occupation and use permit granted to Nonparty 2:

C. Disposition on April 29, 2008 by succession to the rights and obligations of the river occupation and use permit granted to Nonparty 3:

D. On May 29, 2008, a disposition to change the purpose of permission to occupy and use rivers granted to Nonparty 3:

E. Disposition on April 30, 2009 by succession to the rights and obligations of the river occupation and use permit granted to Nonparty 4:

F. Disposition on March 12, 2010 by succession to the rights and obligations of the river occupation and use permit granted to Nonparty 5:

G. On December 10, 2010, a disposition to permit the extension of the period to Nonparty 5:

confirm that each invalidation is void.

2. On January 9, 2007, the part of the instant lawsuit seeking restoration of the right to occupy and use a river against the Plaintiff shall be dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The order Paragraph (1) (the "Succession to the rights and obligations of the river occupation and use permit, which was made to ○○ on December 17, 2007" as stated in the purport of the claim, appears to be a clerical error in the "disposition on December 18, 2007 on the succession to the rights and obligations of the river occupation and use permit", "the permission for the occupation and use of a river made to ○○○ on May 29, 2008", "the permission for the occupation and use of a river made to ○○ on April 29, 2008", "the disposition on the succession to the rights and obligations of the river occupation and use permit, which was made to ○○○ on April 24, 2009", and "the succession to the rights and obligations of the river occupation and use" made to ○○○ on April 30, 209, which was made to ○○ on January 9, 2007", and the defendant granted the permission for the use to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From August 23, 2002, the Plaintiff operated a fishing boat mooring place in Chuncheon City ( Address 1 omitted) and ( Address 2 omitted). On January 9, 2007, in order to operate the water-related leisure business by installing a fishing boat wharf, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant to occupy and use the above ( Address 1 omitted) and three parcels from January 9, 2007 to January 8, 2010 (hereinafter “instant occupancy and use permission”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff completed the construction of the fishing boat wharf (hereinafter “the instant fishing boat wharf”) on June 11, 2007 and received a notification of the completion authorization from the Defendant on June 21, 2007.

B. As above, the Plaintiff borrowed money from Nonparty 1 on or around January 25, 2007 in the course of constructing the instant excursion ship wharf with the permission to occupy and use the rivers of this case, the value of which exceeds the principal and interest borrowed, shall be KRW 70,00,000, and the Plaintiff shall operate the purchase price until September 30, 2007, and even when the Plaintiff sells it, Nonparty 1 shall provide documents related to the sales (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) without participating in the sales contract, and issued it to Nonparty 1 along with the relevant documents.

C. On May 14, 2007, the Plaintiff demanded the details of the funds borrowed by the Plaintiff in order to repay the borrowed amount to Nonparty 1 and the construction expenses additionally asserted that Nonparty 1 paid part of the instant work to the instant excursion ship wharf. However, there was no answer from Nonparty 1, and the Plaintiff sent content-certified mail to Nonparty 1 on or around June 5, 2007, but Nonparty 1 did not respond accordingly.

D. Meanwhile, on June 28, 2007, Nonparty 1 submitted a report on succession to the right and obligation to succeed to the permission of the instant occupation and use of rivers to the Defendant. On July 18, 2007, Nonparty 1 sought the Plaintiff’s opinion on this issue, and the Plaintiff sought to repay the borrowed money, etc. before the agreed date and return the permitted documents, etc. on or before the agreed date, but requested that the transfer of the title to the permission of the instant occupation and use of rivers would be illegal, and the transfer of the title to the instant permission of the occupation and use of rivers would be required to be deferred until the court is decided in accordance with the legal procedure with Nonparty 1.

E. However, on October 31, 2007, Nonparty 1 filed a complaint with the Plaintiff (Sacheon District Prosecutors' Office 2007 type No. 7776) on the grounds of the lack of evidence, and the Defendant was notified of without permission due to the lack of evidence. Accordingly, on November 12, 2007, the Defendant issued a disposition to succeed to the rights and obligations of the river occupation and use permit to Nonparty 1.

F. On December 18, 207, Nonparty 1 transferred the above permit to Nonparty 2, and the Defendant transferred the permit to Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 2 issued a permit to occupy and use the river on April 29, 2008 to Nonparty 3, and the Defendant issued a permit to change the purpose of the above permit to use the river on May 29, 2008, and on May 29, 2008. Nonparty 3 transferred the above permit to Nonparty 4 on April 30, 2009, and the Defendant transferred the right to occupy and use the river to Nonparty 4 on April 30, 2009, and Nonparty 4 transferred the above permit to Nonparty 5 (Defendant of the judgment of appeal) and the Defendant issued the permit to occupy and use the river on March 12, 2010 to Nonparty 5, and the permission to extend the river on March 15, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the period of each of the instant cases”).

G. The Plaintiff was unable to operate the instant excursion ship wharf in the above process and failed to complete the repayment of the debt borrowed to Nonparty 1. However, Nonparty 1 did not go through the settlement procedures prior to and after the transfer of the permission for occupation and use of the instant water and the name of the excursion ship wharf. The market price of the instant permission for occupation and use of the excursion ship wharf and the instant permission for the excursion ship wharf shall be KRW 100,000,000, which is the principal and interest specified in the relevant contract at the time

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 8, 12 through 23, 32, Eul evidence 1, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

[Proof evidence] According to each of the documents attached to Eul evidence Nos. 2 (Rights and Obligations Succession Report). The plaintiff's name is acknowledged as having been written a confirmation of the transfer of the permission for occupation and use of this case and the permission for occupation and use of this case and a waiver of all rights and obligations on the water-related leisure industry to Non-party 1 on or around June 2007. Meanwhile, according to the above facts acknowledged as above, the plaintiff only delivered documents related to the sales contract of this case in order to secure the loan obligation to Non-party 1, and around May 14, 2007 and June 5, 2007, it is difficult to obtain from Non-party 1 any reason prior to the expiration of the agreed period in light of the empirical rule to waive all rights and obligations without any reason.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

On January 9, 2007, the part of the lawsuit in this case against the plaintiff seeking restoration of the river occupation and use permit right against the plaintiff on Jan. 9, 2007, and the lawsuit seeking a performance judgment ordering an administrative agency to take a certain administrative disposition under the current Administrative Litigation Act or a court order the administrative agency to directly conduct an administrative disposition having the same effect as the administrative agency issued a certain administrative disposition is not allowed (see Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu8135, May 23, 1989; 97Nu3200, Sept. 30, 197, etc.). Thus, this part of the lawsuit by the plaintiff is an execution judgment ordering the administrative agency to restore the road occupation and use permit of this case on Jan. 9, 2007 against the plaintiff to its original state immediately. Thus, this part of the lawsuit by the plaintiff is unlawful.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff prepared and issued the instant sales contract to secure 50,00,000 won borrowed from Nonparty 1 for the permission for occupation and use of the instant river and the construction of the excursion ship wharf. The Plaintiff agreed to return KRW 100,000,000 by September 30, 2007. Nevertheless, Nonparty 1 applied for the succession to the permission for occupation and use of the instant river prior to the arrival of the said period and applied for the succession to the permission for occupation and use of the instant river and the succession permission for the instant river and the excursion ship wharf to approximately KRW 500,000,000 for market price by threatening and joining the Plaintiff with Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3, etc., and each of the dispositions of the instant case is serious and clear, and thus is null and void.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

In light of the relevant legal principles, this case's sales contract concluded between the plaintiff and non-party 1 is reasonable to deem that it is a promise for payment in kind to secure the obligation of the loan between the parties at the time of the notice, and as long as the value at the time of the contract exceeds the principal and interest, the reservation for payment in kind itself is null and void and the validity of transfer in kind is recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da11223, Dec. 24, 191). In addition, the permission for occupation and use of the instant sales contract and the excursion ship wharf of this case, which is the purpose of the instant sales contract, are the right to register or register and the right to register under Articles 1 through 4 and 18 of the Provisional Registration Security Act (hereinafter "this case's provisional registration Security Security Act"), and the assessment amount of liquidation money after the due date of the claim's payment (the amount subtracting the amount of the claim from the value of the secured object at the time of the notice) shall be notified to the debtor and two months have passed from the date of delivery of the order and obligation of the transfer.

Furthermore, even though the plaintiff raised an objection to each of the dispositions of this case to the defendant, it is not a lawful sales contract, and the defendant made a disposition only by the documents submitted by the non-party 1 without disregarding it. On November 12, 2007, each disposition written on the basis of the disposition including the disposition of succession to the rights and obligations of the river occupation and use permit granted to the non-party 1, and each disposition written on the basis of the disposition was based on the wrong facts, and not only on the erroneous facts but also on the non-exclusive security between the non-party, which is contrary to the purport of preventing disadvantages to the interested parties such as the debtor or junior creditor, and is contrary to the purport of protecting the debtor, etc., it is reasonable to

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking restoration of the river occupation and use permit right against the plaintiff on January 9, 2007 shall be dismissed as unlawful, and since the remaining claims are well-grounded, it shall be accepted in all of them. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges Park Sang-gu (Presiding Judge)