beta
Text
1. The phrase “amount of compensation” in the separate sheet as stated by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs on July 16, 2015 is as follows.
Reasons
Details of the disposition
Plaintiff
B, C, D, and E are the owners of the land and buildings of the Gangnam-gu Seoul High Court (hereinafter referred to as the “J”) and the owners of the land and buildings of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff A”) on January 1, 2015, and the owners of the land and buildings of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) and the owners of the land and buildings of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff G”) and the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) are the owners of the land and buildings of M, and the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Co., Ltd”).
From July 16, 2010 to June 30, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to impose indemnity for each of the money stated in the “amount of indemnity” in the above list (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiffs on July 16, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiffs occupied each of the land indicated in the “area for Occupancy” in the attached list (hereinafter “instant land”) among the O road (hereinafter “instant road”).
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 10, and 13 (including numbers attached to virtual numbers), and the purport of the entire pleading of this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office (hereinafter "Gangnam-gu Office")'s assertion that the disposition of this case was legitimate, set up by the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office (hereinafter "Gangnam-gu Office") to erroneously set up the boundary of the road of this case, and the plaintiffs
Therefore, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs have justifiable grounds in occupying the above issues of land, or that the plaintiffs have intention or negligence.
Therefore, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.
Article 94 (Collection of Indemnification) of the former Road Act (Amended by Act No. 10156, Mar. 22, 2010) does not obtain permission to occupy and use a road under Article 38 of the same Act.