logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.07.17 2020구단6116
변상금부과처분취소
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. On May 26, 2015, the Defendant: (a) determined the period of use as five years from August 1, 2015 to July 31, 2020 with respect to the portion of the C building located in Seocheon-si B (hereinafter “instant building”); and (b) determined that the said period of use may be revoked if the Plaintiff paid the user fee within the period designated by the said notice of payment and did not pay it.

B. The Plaintiff did not pay part of the quarterly usage fee in April 2016, and did not pay the full amount of the usage fee from the first quarter of 2017.

Accordingly, on January 4, 2019, the Defendant revoked the permission for the use of the instant portion of the permission after prior notice of demanding the payment of user fees and revoking the permission for use.

The Plaintiff completed the delivery on June 2019, even after the permission for use was revoked as above, that part of the instant permission was not delivered to the Defendant.

C. On October 24, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing indemnity amounting to KRW 21,058,350 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff continued to possess the permitted portion of the instant use permission, on the grounds that the Plaintiff continued to possess it (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4-17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. From March 2019, the Defendant, in violation of the principle of good faith, promised not to impose indemnity on the Plaintiff when it delivers all the three floors of the instant building to the Plaintiff by the end of June 2019. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, even though it delivered all the three floors of the instant building on or around June 2019, contrary to the above promise, did not object to the Defendant.

arrow