2015Gudan54714 Demanding revocation of revocation of a demand

A

The Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism

October 21, 2015

December 30, 2015

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s demand disposition against the Plaintiff on February 11, 2015, which exceeds KRW 26,540,150 among the demand disposition of the Plaintiff for late 36,652,860, and the amount exceeding KRW 4,500 among the demand disposition of KRW 4,50,000,000, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 22, 2003, the defendant imposed 45,068,860 won on the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff occupied 304m of the river B in the Hanam-si, the State property from April 30, 1996 to December 31, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the first land in this case") from 4301m (from January 1, 1997 for the part of the square meters of 331m), 789m of the river C in the 2092 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the second land in this case"), 304m of the river in the Hanam-si, the river in the Hanam-si (hereinafter referred to as "the third land in this case") from April 30, 1996 to December 31, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the damages in this case").

B. On December 1, 2005, the Defendant: (a) on January 1, 2003, from January 1, 2003 to July 31, 2004, occupied 4,301 square meters out of the instant land; (b) 789 meters out of the instant land; and (c) 304 square meters out of the instant land from August 1, 2004 to November 30, 205; (b) 53 square meters out of the instant land; (c) 214 square meters out of the instant land; and (d) 206,30,300,00 won out of the instant land; and (e) on the ground that the damages were paid to the Plaintiff on the ground that the damages were paid to the Plaintiff from 20,606,300 square meters to 27,000 won; and (e) on the ground that the damages were paid to the Plaintiff on the ground that the damages were paid to the Plaintiff on the instant land 21315 meters.

D. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the instant 1,20,000 won, interest on the instant 1,20,068,860 won and the instant 45,000 won and interest on the instant 1,20,000 won and interest on the instant 4,50,000 won in installments (2,40,000 won and interest on the first 2,000,000 won (2,000 won, August 22, 2009), and 1,50,000 won (2,000 won,000 won, 201,82,000 won) from August 12, 2011, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay the instant 1,206,000 won and the late 2,000 won from November 21, 203 to August 21, 2018.

E. On February 11, 2015, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay again the instant 1,20,000 won and the late payment charge (33,820,130 won from November 2003 to November 19, 2008, and the late payment charge (2,832,730 won from March 23, 2006 to March 22, 201) with respect to the instant 1,20,000 won and the late payment charge (hereinafter referred to as “instant demand”) from November 203, 203 to November 19, 208 on the instant 1, 206 as to the instant 2,832,730 won and interest on the first 4,50,000 won as to the damages (hereinafter referred to as “instant demand”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

The plaintiff asserts that the portion exceeding 26,540,155 won out of the late payment charges on the first and second indemnities of this case (the late payment charges on the first indemnity of this case from May 24, 2007 to November 19, 2008) and the portion exceeding 2,100,000 won out of the late payment interest on the first indemnity of this case (the first installment interest and KRW 2,40,000) has expired by prescription, and that the defendant seeks its revocation, the demand of this case only has the meaning as a simple peremptory notice under the Civil Act, and is not an administrative disposition subject to a revocation lawsuit, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

As seen earlier, on November 19, 2007 ( late May 24, 2007 to November 19, 2008 and interest 2.4 million won for the first installment) for the portion for which the Plaintiff seeks revocation among the instant demands (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007, May 24, 2007 to November 15, 2007); on July 16, 2008 (from November 16, 2007 to July 15, 2008 to 2008 to 300,000,0000 won for the first installment of the damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du9719, Jul. 16, 2007 to 15, 2008 to 300,000 won for the first installment of the damages); and there is no room to view that there is a demand for the payment of damages from each of the same case to 16.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the part seeking revocation among the demands of this case falls under an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, which is unlawful (it is difficult to dispute as an administrative litigation on the ground that the part seeking revocation is not the first demand against the plaintiff among the demands of this case, and can dispute only with the first demand, it is difficult to dispute the completion of extinctive prescription. However, it cannot be said that it is difficult to dispute the expiration of extinctive prescription. However, the issue of expiration of extinctive prescription can not be determined on such ground. Since it is possible for the plaintiff to dispute the cancellation of attachment after paying part of the first, second and late indemnities of this case

3. Conclusion

If so, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.

Judges Lee Jin-ap