logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.01.14 2015구합11783
도로점용허가취소처분 취소청구의 소
Text

1. The revocation of permission granted by the Defendant to occupy and use a road on May 15, 2015 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person operating a rest area C (hereinafter “instant rest area”) in the Jeonnam-gun B.

B. On March 31, 1995, the Plaintiff obtained permission to occupy and use the road of 997 square meters in total (on present, the number was changed to each G, H, and I; hereinafter “instant road”) in order to use the instant road as an access to the rest area from the Defendant, the Plaintiff paid the occupation and use fee to the Defendant for 20 years thereafter, using the instant road as an access to the rest area.

C. On around 2006, Jeonnam-do implemented the “LL-4-lane Do Road Construction Works” (hereinafter “instant local road construction work”), which is a construction work of constructing a local highway from Heung-gun to K to facilitate the regional development by means of smooth transportation of water flows in the south-west area, and on May 12, 2015, on the ground that the instant road site was incorporated into a road site for the instant local road construction work, the Defendant requested the revocation of the instant permission to occupy and use the road pursuant to Article 97(1) of the Road Act.

On May 15, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the permission of this case was inevitably revoked pursuant to Article 97(1) of the Road Act upon the Plaintiff’s request for revocation of permission to occupy and use the instant local highway from among the instant roads (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 13 evidence, Eul evidence 1 through 9, 11 through 14 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked as it is unlawful in the following respect.

1 The defendant does not give prior notice and give an opportunity to present opinions to the plaintiff while rendering the instant disposition.

arrow