logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.11.12 2015구합65117
국유재산 사용허가 취소처분 취소
Text

1. On May 31, 2015, the Defendant permitted the Plaintiff to use State-owned property on the 1,164 square meters of the land for the railway in Namyang-si, Namyang-si.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is a person who operates a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “D” in the Namyang City located within a development-restricted zone under the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zones Act”).

On March 3, 2010, with respect to the purpose of use of 400 square meters among the 4,165 square meters in the 200 square meters in Nam-si, Namyang-si located within a development-restricted zone as State property and located within the development-restricted zone, the Plaintiff obtained permission for use from the Defendant for the use of 354 square meters in front of a food-raising business establishment (parking for parking) and from February 23, 2010 to December 31, 2014. The Plaintiff obtained permission for use for the use of 354 square meters in addition to the above B around February 23, 2013 to December 31, 2014.

The Defendant imposed indemnity on October 30, 2014 and December 22, 2014, based on the result of the fact-finding survey on the use of State property conducted on October 17, 2014, on the ground that each Plaintiff “the Plaintiff is using State property without permission more than 410 square meters (754 square meters).” On February 10, 2015, the Defendant, on the Plaintiff, determined on the following grounds: (a) the purpose of use of the parking lot for the land subject to the said permission; and (b) the period of use for the land to be used for the Plaintiff; and (c) the period of use from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019:

(hereinafter “instant permission for use”). The instant permission for use of State-owned property issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on February 10, 2015 (hereinafter “instant permission for use”) granted only the right to use the site and the right to use the site. As such, in cases where construction of a temporary building, structure, plastic house, etc. is intended, a report and authorization shall be obtained from the local government after obtaining prior approval from the Corporation, after obtaining permission from the Corporation.

b. The conditions of permission (hereinafter “instant conditions of permission”) should ensure that civil petitions do not occur with respect to the use of the permitted property under Article 20 (Civil Petitions) of the terms and conditions of permission (hereinafter “the instant conditions of permission”), and the employer’s responsibility where civil

arrow