beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s reimbursement of KRW 100,600 for road usage fees and additional 3,010 for the Plaintiff around February 2018, 2012.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 27, 2005, the Plaintiff owned a large volume of 407 square meters in Busan Shipping Daegu (hereinafter “instant land”) and sold it to C on December 13, 2014. The said land is adjacent to the Busan Shipping Daegu D road, which is owned by the Republic of Korea, 1,472 square meters.
B. From February 2018 to December 31, 2012, the Defendant imposed an indemnity of KRW 100,60, additional dues of KRW 3,010, additional dues of KRW 3,010, and KRW 104,50, additional dues of KRW 3,000, KRW 3,010, and KRW 100, KRW 3,130, and additional dues of KRW 97,00, KRW 90,00, and KRW 2930,09, and KRW 30,000, from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, under Article 72 of the Road Act on the instant land, on the grounds that the Plaintiff illegally occupies and uses the instant road by installing a pen, including 4.1 square meters, among the land of this case, which is located in Busan Shipping Daegu D road (hereinafter referred to as “intersectioned road”).
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1-3; Eul evidence Nos. 1-3; and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition is unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff occupies and uses a key point due to the State’s survey failure even though the Plaintiff did not occupy and use the key point, and thus, should be revoked. 2) Even if the survey is correct, the Defendant also did not compensate the Plaintiff’s land without permission, and thus is contrary to equity, and thus, it is unreasonable to impose indemnity only on the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked.
(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.
C. 1) In an appeal suit seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, there is a burden of proof as to the lawfulness of the pertinent disposition against the Defendant, who is the disposition authority claiming the lawfulness of the pertinent disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu124, Jul. 24, 1984; 2006Du12937, Jan. 12, 2007).