beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.
2. The Defendant’s indemnity on December 2, 2010 to the Plaintiff on December 2, 2012, 556,722.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. Pursuant to Article 2 [Attachment 2] of the Daegu Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Affairs, the Plaintiff was delegated by Daegu Metropolitan City to perform road construction works, road maintenance and management, etc., and the Defendant is a corporation established on December 31, 2003 under the Framework Act on Railroad Industry Development and the Korea Rail Network Authority Act for the purpose of contributing to the enhancement of citizens’ traffic convenience and the sound development of the national economy by efficiently implementing the construction and management of railroad facilities and other related projects.
B. On September 1, 2009, the Defendant: (a) occupied and used the land in question without permission for use under Article 72 of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 10485, Mar. 30, 201; (b) No. 473-22, 483-1, 483-2, 483-169, 483-172, 132-3, 132-6; and (c) on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the land in question without permission for use under Article 72 of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 10485, Jan. 1, 2004; hereinafter the same shall apply).
On October 28, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. The Central Administrative Appeals Commission revoked the above disposition on the ground that there was a defect in the decision on the property value of the disposition as of September 1, 2009.
C. On December 2, 2010, the Defendant issued a new notice of KRW 556,72,540 to the Plaintiff by applying the usage fee rate of 50/100 after withdrawing the property value of the instant land according to the ruling of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and applying the usage fee rate of 50/100 to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition imposing indemnity against the land No. 1 of this case is legitimate or not is stated in the first instance court’s purport.