beta
Text
1. On December 5, 2015, the Defendant against Plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, andO (attached Form 2).
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiffs are the owners of each building located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AA and AB in the urban renewal acceleration district (attached Form 2). The Plaintiffs are the owners of each building at the location of the building subject to the imposition of the detailed statement of the imposition of indemnity (hereinafter referred to as the “attached sheet”).
B. On December 5, 2015, based on Article 72 of the Road Act, the Defendant issued each disposition (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) imposing each indemnity (from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015) on the Plaintiffs as the owner or manager of “land occupied and used” in the attached list, on the grounds that the Plaintiffs occupied the road, which is each land occupied and used in the attached list.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of whole pleading
2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. Since land owned by each of the plaintiffs' respective buildings owned by the plaintiffs is not a road subject to the Road Act, each of the dispositions of this case against the plaintiffs is unlawful as it is without legal basis.
B. Determination 1) A, B, C, D, F, G, H, K, K, L, M, N, andO are the roads subject to the application of the Road Act only when a road is in the form of a road, when the designation or public announcement of the route is made, when a road zone is determined and publicly announced, or when a road zone is determined and publicly announced in accordance with the provisions of the Road Act or the Urban Redevelopment Act is followed by the procedures prescribed in the Urban Planning Act or the Urban Redevelopment Act. However, it is insufficient to view the land possessed by the above plaintiffs as the roads subject to the application of the Road Act by means of the determination and public announcement of the road zone or other procedures stipulated in the relevant laws and regulations. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Therefore, among the dispositions of this case, the above plaintiffs occupy roads under the Road Act.