beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On October 31, 2005, the Defendant: (a) concluded a loan agreement with the Plaintiff, the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 202 heading (14.09 square meters of a site, 3.97 square meters of a building; hereinafter “instant State property”); (b) on a yearly basis, the lease term of KRW 2,80,000, and the lease term of KRW 5 years from October 28, 2005 to October 27, 2010; (c) at the time, the loan was paid in lump sum; (d) the first year loan was paid by October 28, 2005; and (e) the late payment was made after the payment period expired; and (e) the Defendant agreed that the loan agreement may be revoked if the Plaintiff violated the said contract provisions.
B. However, the Plaintiff did not pay the second year (from October 28, 2006 to October 27, 2007) under the above loan agreement by October 28, 2006. The Defendant terminated the above loan agreement on August 27, 2007, following the Defendant’s demand for the payment of loan charges on February 6, 2007, May 8, 2007, the demand for the payment of loan charges on May 14, 2007, and the notification of the scheduled termination date.
C. The Plaintiff, despite the termination of the above loan agreement, continuously occupied and used the State property of this case, and delivered it on December 24, 2008, and the Defendant, on January 7, 2009, issued a disposition imposing a total of KRW 4,464,650 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied the State property of this case without permission from August 27, 2007 to December 23, 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not delay if he paid the loan fee in installments, but it is improper to require the defendant to pay the loan fee at once and terminate the loan contract on the ground of arrears. Thus, the disposition of this case on the ground that the plaintiff occupied the state property of this case without permission is null and void.
(b) judgment defects;