beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 26, 2015, the Defendant imposed indemnity of KRW 116,35,570 on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 72 of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 14041, Mar. 2, 2016; hereinafter the same) and performed restoration to its original state to its original state in order to restore the land to its original state without permission for use or lease of 26 lots of land listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 17,266 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. After that, the Defendant reduced the imposition of indemnity as stated in the above paragraph (a) to KRW 78,634,970 on August 20, 2015.
(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion on January 2, 2012 as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion on the following grounds: (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion on the imposition of indemnity on June 26, 2015: (c) the imposition of indemnity remaining after the reduction as above and the imposition of indemnity for restoration to the original state; (d) the imposition of indemnity for which the reduction was made; and (e) the imposition of indemnity for which the aforementioned reduction was made; (e) the Plaintiff’s assertion on January 2, 201:
A. According to Article 54(5)1 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Non-existence of Administrative Authority (hereinafter “Provisions on Delegation of Administrative Authority”), the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport provides that the Minister shall entrust the Defendant with the affairs concerning the motorway under Article 10(1) of the Road Act among the affairs concerning State property under his/her jurisdiction.
However, as the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (former Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs) cancelled the instant land on May 12, 201 at a road zone and publicly notified the cancellation, the instant land does not constitute a national expressway under Article 10 subparagraph 1 of the Road Act, and thus, the Defendant has administrative authority in relation to the instant land.