The following circumstances may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and Gap evidence 2-4.

A. On July 30, 2015, the Defendant amended the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Management of Land Secured for Urban Development Development, which was the proviso to Article 16(1) of the Act on Management of Land Secured for the Development of Urban Development, and lowered the lending rate of “the land allotted for development recompense for collective relocation, which was relocated by the local government for the improvement of the downtown area and the removal of defective houses in the flood Sea area before 1973” (hereinafter “the land allotted for development recompense for collective settlement”) to be 10/1,000 for residential purposes and 20/1,000 for non-residential cases (hereinafter “the instant special provisions”).

B. On September 9, 2016, the Defendant passed a resolution on partial amendment of the Ordinance on the Management of Land Secured for the Development of Urban Development (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”) and transferred the same to the Plaintiff. The instant Ordinance enacted Article 2 of the Addenda to the instant Special Provisions, stating, “The same shall apply to the indemnity first imposed after the enforcement of this Ordinance among the land allotted for the recompense of development outlay for collective settlement (hereinafter “instant Addenda provisions”).

C. On September 27, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded a reconsideration to the Defendant on the ground that the instant Ordinance violates the relevant statute, but the Defendant re-resolutioned the instant Ordinance on March 3, 2017.

D. The land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay to which the special provisions of this case apply is only the land located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address omitted), and the land seems to have been occupied and used without permission for use or profit-making or loan contract until recently.

2. Whether the Ordinance of this case is null and void as it violates any statute

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the supplementary provision of this case violates the main text of Article 81(1) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”) and the main text of Article 81(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 81(1) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act, which allows the imposition and collection of indemnities for each fiscal year by retroactively applying the loan rate, which serves as the basis for the imposition and collection of indemnities for the settlement of land secured for recompense of development outlay for collective relocation.

B. The main text of Article 81(1) of the Public Property Act and the main text of Article 81(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the head of a local government shall impose and collect an indemnity amounting to 120/100 of the aggregate of usage fees or rents calculated for each fiscal year from a person who occupies public property or goods without permission. Article 32(1) of the Public Property Act and Article 31(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate that rental fees for general property shall be determined by ordinances of the local government within the scope of at least 10/100 of the appraised value of the pertinent property reflecting the market price. In full view of these provisions and Article 9(2)1(i) of the Local Autonomy Act, the imposition and collection of indemnity from illegal possession of public property stipulated in the Ordinance of this case constitutes the autonomous affairs of the local government as a matter of public property management. Furthermore, in principle, the local government may enact municipal ordinances within the scope of statutes regarding autonomous affairs within the scope of statutes, and in comparison with the legislative purpose and municipal ordinances and municipal ordinances.

C. Examining the foregoing legal principles, the Ordinance of this case with the supplementary provision of this case cannot be deemed to violate the Public Property Act and subordinate statutes.

1) As seen earlier, the Act and subordinate statutes on public property stipulate that the local government shall autonomously determine the lending rate, which serves as the basis for the imposition and collection of indemnity due to unauthorized occupation of public property, in accordance with municipal ordinances. Accordingly, the intent of the local government related thereto shall be respected to

2) Even though the public property law provides that the indemnity shall be imposed and collected by each fiscal year, it cannot be deemed that the purpose of the lending rate is not to restrict the application of the municipal ordinance that was amended favorably to the person liable for the payment of indemnity to the unauthorized occupation for which the indemnity has not been imposed and collected until its enforcement.

3) The instant special provisions stipulate that the rate of loan which serves as the basis for the imposition and collection of indemnities by the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for settlement of a group is lower than the previous one. Meanwhile, the instant special provisions stipulate that the special provisions apply to illegal occupancy for which indemnity has not been imposed and collected by the time the special provisions were enforced. In full view of the legislative intent and amendment process of each provision, the background leading up to the amendment, the nature of the land allotted by the groups subject to the application of the instant special provisions and the supplementary provisions, etc., the instant municipal ordinances cannot be deemed as considerably unreasonable or unfair beyond the reasonable scope of discretion regarding the enactment of municipal ordinances (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da15013, Mar. 10, 2006, etc.).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)