logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.08.19 2014구단5840
변상금부과처분취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing indemnity against the Plaintiff on March 31, 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) was the owner of 1,375 square meters and D forest 31,888 square meters (hereinafter “the instant inherited land”) in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu. After the deceased’s death, the deceased was inherited the shares of each of the above lands due to the agreement division inheritance.

E, the representative director of the plaintiff, is the owner of 1/6 shares of each of the above lands as the children of the deceased.

B. The Defendant imposed KRW 9,178,110 on the Plaintiff, etc. on April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff, E, G, H, I, J, and K (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) occupied and used trees without permission for use or loan agreement, by planting trees and installing pents, etc., without permission for use or loan agreement, on the ground that the Plaintiff, etc. occupied and used the land near the instant inherited land (hereinafter “instant State-owned land”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”: Provided, That the amount imposed was finally changed and the amount was finally reduced to KRW 638,760 as follows).

On July 1, 2014, the Defendant issued a revised notice on the survey area to the Korea Cadastral Corporation, and then changed the content of the indemnity amount to KRW 8,705,985 on the ground that the Plaintiff et al. occupied and used the instant State-owned land, not the volume of 486 square meters, but the volume of 461 square meters without permission.

Then, according to the authoritative interpretation that it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff, etc. to possess and use the State-owned land of this case for the purpose of farming rather than for the purpose of occupying and using it for other purposes, the Defendant reaffirmed the disposition of reducing the indemnity to 638,760 (the imposition period and the area of occupancy and use are the same as that of the transfer) on October 31, 2014.

[Ground of Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and Eul No. 4.

arrow