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. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C large-scale 407 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and the housing on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”), occupied and used 47 square meters out of B, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is adjacent to the instant land, without permission.
B. On December 10, 2015, the Defendant, who manages the instant ditch, issued a disposition imposing KRW 2,120,640 of the indemnity to the Plaintiff from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 under Article 81 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied 47 square meters of the instant ditch without permission (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) unilaterally raised 320% of the officially assessed individual land price of the instant ditch during four years from 2011 to 2015. On the ground of the instant ditch, there is no building on the ground of the ditch, and it is practically impossible to use or benefit from the said land because it is laid underground concrete sewage exceeding 1m in diameter, the individual land price of the Plaintiff’s land where the instant ditch was constructed is less than 2,09,000, the individual land price of the Plaintiff’s land where the Plaintiff’s land was constructed was 25m, and the appraisal agency deemed that the instant ditch was adjacent to the road. However, it is unlawful to assess the individual land price of the instant ditch as the residential area and calculate the individual land price of the instant ditch in light of the fact that the instant ditch is not adjacent to the road. The instant disposition calculated based on this is unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff did not notify the Plaintiff of the increase of the officially assessed individual land price in determining the individual land price of the instant ditch, and did not notify the Plaintiff of the objection.
Therefore, the ditches of this case.