1. Among the lawsuits in this case, the part concerning the revocation of the disposition of refusal to renew the permission to use or benefit from state property and state property.

1. Basic facts

가. 피고의 원고에 대한 국유재산 사용ㆍ수익허가 피고는 2011. 6. 2. 목포시 죽교동 571에 있는 목포해양대학교 학생회관 2층 매점(390㎡), 매점창고(25㎡), 자판기(66㎡, 도서관 외 13개소, 아래에서는 위 매점, 매점창고, 자동판매기를 ‘이 사건 국유재산’이라 한다)에 관한 국유재산(매점, 스낵 및 자판기) 사용ㆍ수익허가 입찰 공고를 하여 입찰을 시행한 후 원고를 낙찰자로 선정하였고, 2011. 6. 23. 원고에게 이 사건 국유재산에 관하여 사용ㆍ수익허가기간을 2011. 8. 1.부터 2014. 7. 31.까지로 한 국유재산 사용ㆍ수익허가를 하였다.

B. On July 2, 2014 and July 15, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of each of the following purport: “The period of permission to use and profit from State property in the instant case was terminated on July 2, 2014, and immediately after the expiration of the period of permission to return State property in the instant case,” but each of the above notification was returned to the Plaintiff as a closed leave. (2) On July 30, 2014, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a notice to the effect that “the period of permission to use and profit from State property in the instant case was terminated on July 31, 2014, the period of permission to return facilities being used until August 5, 2014 to the original state, and was served on the Plaintiff on September 8, 2014.

(1) The plaintiff asserts that the above notification is a rejection disposition against the plaintiff's application for renewal of the permission of use and benefit, and thus, the above notification is also referred to as "the rejection disposition against the plaintiff" as follows.

The Defendant, on August 20, 2014, demanded that the Plaintiff return the instant state property to its original state after restitution, and failed to implement the disposition of the Defendant’s order against the Plaintiff, the Defendant, on August 20, 2014, intends to execute the administrative vicarious execution pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act.