beta
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 November 12, 2013, the Plaintiff used the part of the instant site to occupy 26 square meters among B large 50 square meters in Sungsung-si (hereinafter “instant site”) without a loan agreement. The instant part is located within the Plaintiff’s wall.
B. On November 15, 2018, the Defendant imposed KRW 1,861,450 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant portion of the site was occupied and used for a housing site without a loan agreement, on November 11, 2018, on the ground that it occupied and used it for a housing site without a loan agreement.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). Compensation for each year is an amount equivalent to 120/100 of loan charges calculated by multiplying the value of the instant site based on the publicly assessed individual land price by the rate of 2%.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant disposition
A. The plaintiff asserts to the following purport.
① The person in charge of the State property of the ignistic viewing permitted the Plaintiff to use the instant site without compensation.
② Since additional 20% of the indemnities imposed by the Defendant is an administrative disposition imposed by the Defendant, the amount excluding them is normal amount.
③ Before November 12, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the viewing of harmony with the State-owned property, and paid the loan fee in good faith. After the loan business regarding the instant part of the site was transferred to the Defendant, the Defendant did not have consultation as to the loan agreement.
In addition, it is not a annual unit but a 5-year indemnity notice is a lack of consistency in administration.
④ Inasmuch as it was known that possession of 50 square meters was prior to 2013, rent was paid based on the size, but the instant disposition deemed that only 26 square meters had been possessed, the rent prior to 2013 ought to be settled.
(5) It is inappropriate to conclude a loan agreement again on a yearly basis, disregarding the Plaintiff's right to make a decision.