beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From March 2001, the Plaintiff occupied and used public waters by 350 square meters among B, B,043 square meters (hereinafter “B public waters”), C, C, 152 square meters, D, 562 square meters, E, E, 942 square meters, F, 180 square meters, and public waters of 2,186 square meters in total (hereinafter “instant public waters, including B public waters”), without permission from the competent authority.
B. On July 1, 2013, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to reinstate public waters B on the ground that “the Plaintiff is occupying and using public waters B without the permission of the competent authority.” On September 30, 2013, the Defendant ordered to reinstate public waters of this case on the ground that “the Plaintiff is occupying and using the public waters of this case without the permission of the competent authority.”
C. However, the Plaintiff did not restore the public waters of this case to its original state, and the Defendant accused the Plaintiff to the police around November 6, 2013, and imposed indemnity of KRW 595,560 on the Plaintiff on December 19, 2013.
[Then, the Plaintiff paid indemnity to the Defendant on January 6, 2014. The Plaintiff’s representative G was sentenced to a fine of KRW 4 million on July 23, 2014 and the said judgment became final and conclusive around July 23, 2014, on the following grounds: “The Plaintiff occupied and used the public waters of this case from March 2001 to November 6, 201 without the permission of the competent administrative agency” in the Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Kadan8, 2014Ma52 (Merger).
On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for exemption from the obligation to reinstate public waters (hereinafter “instant application”).
Accordingly, on July 7, 2014, the Defendant’s rejection of the instant application to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff occupied the public waters of this case without permission for the sake of the convenience of individuals, such as planting of trees, the use of the site for planting and parking lots, and the installation of seedlings,” was the result of a document review and on-site investigation.