logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.11.25 2018구단68837
변상금부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The circumstances leading up to the disposition of imposing indemnity (1) 1,471 square meters prior to Guang-si, B (hereinafter “instant land”) was written in the owner column of the old land cadastre on April 10, 1974, and the State entered in the owner column on the ground of the owner’s report, and the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of the State (National Railroad) on November 13, 1974.

The name of the administrative district at the time of registration of preservation of ownership of the land of this case is "Fluri-gun, Gyeonggi-do."

② On May 21, 2018, the Defendant entrusted with the management of the instant land by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land for cultivation without permission, notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of indemnity pursuant to Article 72 of the State Property Act, and on June 7, 2018, the Plaintiff was subject to imposition of indemnity of KRW 14,158,490 for the period from June 8, 2013 to June 7, 2018.

3) Each entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap's evidence No. 4-2 through 6, 15-18, Eul's evidence No. 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① purchased the instant land from C before 1966 to the time of the death on June 28, 201, and cultivated the instant land from that time, and occupied the instant land by installing a vinyl house and a tombstone on the instant land. As the deceased died on June 28, 2011, six co-inheritors, including the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff, acquired the right of possession, and upon delegation by co-inheritors, the Plaintiff cultivated and managed the instant land along with E along with his mother.

On the other hand, since the State did not actually use the land as administrative property and did not decide to use it as administrative property, it is not subject to prescriptive acquisition.

arrow