(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.11.27 2015나55152

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.11.27 2015나55152

사용료 반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of the land of 1,036 square meters and C 1,173 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant land”) in Ilyang-si, Seoyang-gu, Ilyang-si and the Plaintiff is operating a gas station (hereinafter referred to as the “instant gas station”) on the instant land from around 1993.

B. The road of this case 13,781 square meters and E ditch 13,339 square meters and 13,339 square meters (hereinafter “the ditch of this case”) are entrusted to the Defendant and managed as agricultural infrastructure by the State.

C. On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant to use 465 square meters among the instant roads for three years, and 255 square meters among the instant ditches, and to pay the usage fees of KRW 14,256,00,00. Of the instant ditches, on May 27, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement for non-purpose use of agricultural production infrastructure (land). Of the instant ditches, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant to use the same for three years and pay KRW 29,250,530 as the usage fees.

(hereinafter “each of the instant lease agreements”) D.

Under each of the instant lease agreements, the Plaintiff paid each of the Defendant KRW 15,681,60 on March 28, 2013, and KRW 8,239,360 on May 27, 2013, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The plaintiff is separate from the fact that the ditch of this case is being used as the entry into the oil station of this case, and the road of this case is merely a general road being used for the passage of general motor vehicles, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff used or occupied it for a specific purpose. Thus, the defendant can collect the user fee for the road of this case on the ground that it was used for the purpose other than the purpose of agricultural infrastructure.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.08.21 2015가단6657

-의정부지방법원 2017.07.13 2016구합1146

-청주지방법원 2017.04.27 2016구합11938

-제주지방법원 2019.11.27 2017구합5977

-대전지방법원 2019.09.11 2018구합103289