logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.06.02 2015구단16262
변상금부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff, a State-owned land, occupied the instant State-owned land from August 1, 2012 to April 17, 2015, as the owner of a temporary building on the ground of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant State-owned land”).

Accordingly, on July 6, 2015, the Defendant (the managing authority of the instant state-owned land) imposed the Plaintiff KRW 70,706,650 of the indemnity calculated as follows:

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”) A . B [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Eul Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, while managing C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) for the aforementioned unauthorized occupation period, the Plaintiff used the instant state-owned land as C’s place of business, and thus, the instant disposition that did not apply to the Plaintiff is unlawful.

B. Article 72(1) of the State Property Act provides, “The head of a central government agency, etc. shall collect from an occupant without permission an indemnity equivalent to 120/100 of the usage fees or rent of the relevant property, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Accordingly, Article 71(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act provides, “The indemnity under Article 72 of the Act shall be the amount equivalent to 120/100 of the annual usage fees or annual rent calculated under Article 29(1) through (3).”

The main sentence of Article 29(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act provides that “The annual user fee shall be an amount calculated by multiplying the value of the relevant property by a rate of not less than 50/1,000, but may be calculated monthly or daily; and Article 29(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act provides that “if a micro enterprise under Article 2 of the Act on the Protection and Support of Small and Medium Enterprises directly uses it for a type of business operated by a micro enterprise (excluding the types of business falling under any of subparagraphs of Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Support for Small

The text and text of the above Act.

arrow