logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.04.22 2015구단60481
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. Since 2006, the Plaintiff occupied part of the Seoul Jung-gu B Road (hereinafter “instant Road”) without permission and operated a temporary store.

B. On December 5, 2014, the Defendant imposed an indemnity of KRW 9,116,400 on the Plaintiff from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2014 on the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal. On June 29, 2015, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling revoking the part regarding the period from December 6, 2014 to December 31, 2014 among the Defendant’s imposition of indemnity.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) The part regarding the period from January 1, 2014 to December 5, 2014, which remains without revocation of the said disposition. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, A, 1, 2-1, 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant did not give prior notice or opportunity to present opinions under the Administrative Procedures Act to the Plaintiff. 2) In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant, by applying Article 72(2) of the Road Act, imposed the occupation charges that are not the indemnity but the indemnity. However, in applying Article 72(1) of the Road Act, the Defendant imposed the indemnity. This is an unlawful disposition that misleads the Plaintiff into applying

3) The Plaintiff paid indemnity in good faith to the existing area of occupation and use (2.3 square meters) prior to the instant disposition. The Defendant’s imposition of indemnity in an amount exceeding four times the amount of the previous payment is unlawful as it violates the principle of trust protection. 4) The Plaintiff suffered significant loss in the instant disposition and received treatment as a person with a disability of grade IV, and thus, can be granted deferment of collection pursuant to Article 80(1)2, 3, and 4 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes.

Therefore, the disposition of this case which did not take the disposition of deferment of collection against the plaintiff is taken.

arrow