(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.10.15 2014누2531 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.10.15 2014누2531

변상금부과처분취소

Text

1. According to the Plaintiff’s amendment of the purport of the claim, the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant on May 10, 2012.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance that cited the Plaintiff’s claim is as follows: (a) changing the “principal claim” into the “preliminary claim” and “preliminary claim” into the “principal claim”; and (b) the Defendant’s new assertion, in particular emphasizes or emphasizes in the trial; and (c) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical with that of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the claim 1) The loan agreement for use to the land of this case was concluded by S, who was the president of the Plaintiff’s foundation, solely on behalf of the principal (the Plaintiff Foundation and the former Yellow Room) at the time of the loan agreement, and thus, it is deemed null and void since it did not obtain the prior consent of the principal. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the possession of the land of this case by the Plaintiff was based on an invalid loan for use, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that it was an unauthorized possession without legal title. Accordingly, in the same purport, the disposition imposing indemnity (from May 11, 2007 to May 10, 201) is lawful.2)

Even if the Plaintiff’s right to use the instant land was already terminated before May 2007 in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, such as the State Property Act, and it is not so.

Even if the head of Yongsan-gu's disposition of imposing indemnity on February 27, 1992 includes the implied expression of intent of termination of the loan for use, it shall be deemed that the loan contract of this case on the land of this case was terminated effectively at that time.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s possession constitutes an unauthorized possession, and the disposition of this case in the same purport is lawful.

B. In addition to the overall purport of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① The Plaintiff is the Gu on May 18, 1938.

참조조문

-국유재산법

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2014. 10. 15. 선고 2014누2531 판결

-서울고등법원 2016.01.15 2015누45672

-서울남부지방법원 2017.10.27 2017나945

-서울고등법원 2016.11.17 2015나2052136

-서울남부지방법원 2016.07.15 2016나51472