beta
Text
1. On August 17, 2012, the Defendant’s reimbursement amounting to KRW 53,251,750 out of KRW 83,300,450 against the Plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiffs, as owners of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) around January 18, 199, obtained permission for occupation and use of 30 square meters among the roads front Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter referred to as the “instant roads”) around January 18, 199, to be used as a passage leading to the right-hand underground parking lots of the instant building, and renewed permission every year.
B. The Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 83,30,450 (the portion occupied by the Plaintiffs from May 1, 2007 to April 30, 2012) pursuant to Article 94 of the Road Act, on August 17, 2012, on the ground that the Plaintiffs occupied a total of 36.5 square meters connected to the outdoor parking lot located on the front floor of the instant building (hereinafter “the instant road”) and the instant road, which exceeds the part for which the Plaintiffs obtained permission to occupy and use, without permission, on the ground that: (a) the area on which the instant road is imposed; and (b) 36.5 square meters connected to the outdoor parking lot located on the first floor of the instant building; (c) and (d) the instant road, among the roads in question, without permission to occupy and use the road.
C. The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit without going through the previous trial procedure regarding the instant disposition.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1-1, 1-2, and Eul 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion
A. The Plaintiffs had already been using 30 square meters of the instant road as a passage to enter the underground parking lot of the instant building, and did not separately use the boundary stone between the roadway and the sidewalk on the left-hand side of the instant road by lowering the boundary stone between the roadway and the sidewalk.
B. The Defendant measured the left-hand side of the instant case and the right-hand area with a total of 64.9 square meters, but installed on each side of the roadways in the part leading to the sidewalk, and the fireproof part and the outer wall of the building located on the sidewalk.