logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.29 2014구합7306
변상금부과처분취소
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. Korea completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on June 30, 1982 with respect to the land on two parcels, such as king-si B and C, etc. (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On October 23, 2014, the Defendant, as the managing authority of the instant land, occupied and used the instant land without any title from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014, issued a disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 87,069,850 for the Plaintiff pursuant to the main sentence of Article 72(1) of the State Property Act and Article 71(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (the detailed calculation details of the amount of indemnity are the same as the written calculation of indemnity; hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1-5, Eul evidence 1 and 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since the Republic of Korea acquired the instant land in an unjust manner, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Republic of Korea is a lawful owner of the instant land is unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff is managing to prevent the surrounding area of the instant land from becoming a prone area, and does not occupy and use the instant land. As such, the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise.

3) The Plaintiff’s father He owned superficies on the instant land with the title to occupy and use the instant land as well as the Republic of Korea granted from Korea the right to occupy and use the instant land in return for using D’s land other than the instant land as the site for the oil pipeline installation, and upon D’s death, the Plaintiff succeeded to the instant right as above. Accordingly, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful. Accordingly, the Defendant imposed indemnity for an excessive amount compared to the market price, thereby deviating from or abusing the scope of discretion.

5 Korea shall be the Republic of Korea.

arrow