beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s imposition of indemnity of KRW 22,626,90 against the Plaintiff on March 29, 2017 exceeds KRW 18,105,30.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff: (a) purchased an unauthorized building that was located on part of the land on the land (attached Form 1 drawings 23,384,000 square meters (referring to the land in this case; hereinafter “instant land”); (b) C railway site; D railway site; (c) E, E, and F road surface (referring to the land in attached Form 1 drawings; hereinafter “the instant land”); and (c) occupied and used the instant building site, including the instant land, while residing in the instant building from around 30 years thereafter; and (d) the instant land adjoins G site, E, and F road.
B. From March 30, 2012 to March 29, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to impose indemnity of KRW 22,626,90,00, calculated by multiplying the officially assessed individual land price of G land, which is the land in contact with the occupation and use part of the road, by the rate of 0.025 (house), on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant land, which is a road site, without permission, from March 30, 2012 to March 29, 2017.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). 【Unsatisfyed Facts, Gap 1, 2, and Eul 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7, each entry, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a result of the examination by this court,
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As to the land that serves as the basis for calculating indemnity, it is reasonable to balance the calculation of indemnity based on the D Railroad land that appears to have the usefulness similar to the land of this case or the officially assessed individual land price of F (Class II general residential area). Since the Defendant calculated indemnity based on G site’s officially assessed individual land price of G (quasi residential area) and thus, the instant disposition is unfair, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful and revoked. 2) As to the application of occupancy and use rate, the Plaintiff is a beneficiary falling under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the National Basic Living Security Act, and thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to reduction or exemption of the rate as prescribed by Article 29(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act.