beta
Text
1. On January 12, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 85,801,790 against the Plaintiff is invalid.
2...
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Republic of Korea on May 13, 1993 with respect to the land owned by Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 21-364 Forest and 1025 square meters (hereinafter in this case).
B. The plaintiff newly built a senior citizen center on the land of this case with the approval of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which owned the land of this case on August 6, 1988, and completed the preservation registration on March 3, 1989.
C. On January 12, 2006, the Defendant entrusted the affairs of managing and disposing of the instant land by the Minister of Strategy and Finance, the office of general administration of the instant land, imposed an indemnity of KRW 85,801,790 on the ground that “the Plaintiff occupied and used 334 square meters of the instant land from November 25, 2010 to January 1, 2015 (hereinafter “the occupation period in this case”) without permission, among the instant land, on the ground that “the Plaintiff occupied and used 334 square meters of the instant land as a senior citizen center site” (hereinafter the instant disposition).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion has a legitimate title to occupy the land of this case.
Therefore, there is a defect in the disposition of this case, and the disposition of this case is null and void because the defect is serious and clear, and the preliminary disposition should be revoked as an illegal disposition.
B. The purport of collecting indemnity equivalent to 120/100 of the usage fees or rent of the pertinent property from a person who occupies, uses, or benefits from the State property without obtaining permission for the loan, use, or profit-making of the State property is that the collection of indemnity can not be made if the occupation, use, or profit-making of the pertinent State property is performed without any legal title. Thus, the above provision is applicable to a person who is in a legal position to justify possession, use, or profit-making.