Whether state-owned land is occupied and used without permission or it also includes an unauthorized building under Article 111(2)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act (negative)

According to the provisions of Article 53(1) of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 5968 of Apr. 15, 1999), Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 111(2) and Article 133(1) [Attachment Table 26] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the area of the business place of the automobile parts maintenance business shall be at least 70 square meters including the total area of the business place, such as office, office, inspection chief, parts storage, etc., without inside and outside of house, and the right to use the site and building of the business place shall be the legitimate right to use the site and building of the business place. The same shall apply to the building of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 5968 of Apr. 15, 199), even if the possessor actually paid indemnity for the use of the building without permission, which does not meet the requirements of the former Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12416, Apr. 28, 199).

Article 53(1) of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 5968 of Apr. 15, 199); Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Management Act; Articles 111(2) and 133(1) [Attachment 26] of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act; Article 2(1) [Attachment 1] subparag. 4(b) and 21 of the former Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16284 of Apr. 30, 199); Article 2(1) [Attachment 1] subparag. 4(b) and 21 of the former Building Act

Maap Youngju

The head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On July 15, 1998, the defendant revoked the disposition of rejection of the application for registration of automobile management business (Partial Maintenance Business) for the land of 1325 and 2 parcels, which was made against the plaintiff on July 15, 1998 by the defendant.

1. Details of the instant disposition

On June 21, 1998, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of automobile management business (sub-maintenance business) with the Defendant under Article 53(1) of the Automobile Management Act and Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act to establish a place of business for automobile management business (sub-maintenance business) on the ground of the Plaintiff’s 1325, 1317-12, 49-93 on the ground of the Seoul Northernbuk-gu, Seoul. However, the Defendant is located within 1325, 1317-12 square meters of land without permission for use each year while the Plaintiff used the land without permission for use, and the above state-owned land is paid by the Plaintiff, and the above ground-owned building is a building under the Building Act that fails to meet the requirements for registration of the automobile management business (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, among the plaintiff's business place, has leased the same 49-3 square meters of land 24.6 square meters and 7.6 square meters of buildings among the same 49-6 square meters, and the part of state-owned land was used for more than 15 years since 1984 by entering into a lease contract with the view to paying indemnity, but the defendant does not take any measures other than imposing indemnity so far so far, and it is anticipated that the defendant will continue to use the land by paying the fee or indemnity to the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff's application for registration of the plaintiff's automobile management business (part maintenance business) shall be deemed to comply with the requirements stipulated in the above relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

3. Determination

According to the provisions of Article 53(1) of the Automobile Management Act, Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Management Act, Articles 111(2) and 133(1) [Attachment Table 26] of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act, which provide for the standards for the site and physical facilities of a place of business to be equipped with the registration of a partial automobile maintenance business, the area of a place of business of automobile maintenance business shall be at least 70 square meters including the total area of a place of business, office, inspection chief, parts storage, etc., and the site and building of a place of business must be properly used. The right to use the site of a place of business mentioned in this case should not be included in the case of unauthorized possession and use of state-owned land without permission according to the procedure prescribed by the Act, even if the possessor actually paid indemnity, and since the physical facilities can not meet the requirements for registration of automobile maintenance under Article 2(1) [Attachment Table 1] 4(2) [Attachment 7] of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act, it can not meet the requirements for the Plaintiff’s construction related facility maintenance business.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jin-young (Presiding Judge)