logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.12.20 2018가합45608
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on February 16, 2012 with the aim of solar power infrastructure, related business, etc., and the Defendant is a corporation established by the Korea Rail Network Authority Act for the construction and management of railroad facilities and the efficient implementation of other projects related thereto.

B. The Defendant’s notice of the Defendant’s bid for permission to use State property, and the Plaintiff’s bid bid price is Kimhae-si, 65, 182,870 square meters (hereinafter “the instant closed-line site”). The Plaintiff participated in the bid and won the instant closed-line site, and subsequently paid KRW 429,00,000 (including bid bond 19,50,000,000; hereinafter “the instant annual usage fee”).

C. Around November 2013, the Defendant granted permission to use State property to the Plaintiff for a fee for the use of State property with the following conditions attached to the closed line site (hereinafter “instant permission”).

Article 1 (Purpose of Use) The purpose of use is to use new and renewable energy business.

Article 3 (User Fee) The user fee for the first year shall be "successful bidder", and the user fee for the period after the second year shall be determined annually pursuant to Articles 29 and 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act.

The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return the site for which solar power generation is impossible and to change the size of the closed line site permitted for use among the closed line site in the instant case that the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid. Accordingly, the Defendant returned from the Plaintiff the waste line site in the instant case that the Plaintiff returned KRW 64,066,590 (including additional tax) for the portion refunded out of the annual usage fees in the instant case, which was returned to the Plaintiff on September 3, 2014, and then again granted permission for use of State property. 2)

arrow