beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Details of the disposition
On September 23, 2016, the Defendant imposed KRW 75,322,490 on the Plaintiff, pursuant to Article 73 of the State Property Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied 800 square meters out of 1,743 square meters, which was a State-owned land, from August 1, 2011 to July 31, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied 1,743 square meters, which was a State-owned land, without permission.
On October 31, 2016, the Defendant imposed KRW 2,956,690 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land, which was a State-owned land, from August 1, 2016 to October 3, 2016, without permission, pursuant to Article 73 of the State Property Act.
(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to the Plaintiff’s land of this case is difficult to view that the Plaintiff occupied the land of this case because it temporarily parked a purification tank vehicle on the land of this case, and even if the Plaintiff occupied it, the area is nothing more than a part of the land of this case. (2) The Defendant implicitly consented to the Plaintiff’s use of the land of this case, thereby violating the principle of trust protection.
Judgment
1) Comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s establishment of fences at the edge of the instant land from August 1, 201 to October 3, 2016, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the determination of the occupancy and the area of possession; and (b) the Plaintiff’s possession of the said land by means of parking a septic tank, installing a structure, etc.; (c) therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit; (d) even if the State or the State’s person entrusted with the administration and disposal of State-owned property imposes indemnity after leaving the state-owned property for a long time, the imposition disposition of indemnity would be contrary to the procedural justice and trust principles, or the owner’s right to use and benefit from the State-owned property may be recognized.