2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is an organization that has completed business registration on June 24, 2008 and has performed the cleaning of ports and the disposal of various wastes under the Korea Port Logistics Association, an incorporated association.

B. After the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries conducted audit procedures on the use of harbor facilities, the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries notified the Defendant of the fact that the Plaintiff did not impose the usage fee on the Plaintiff even if the Plaintiff was not eligible for exemption from the usage fee of harbor facilities, and that the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff was additionally collected the usage fee of harbor facilities for the last five years.

C. On June 16, 2017, the Defendant issued a prior notice on the disposition of additional collection (excluding value-added tax) to the Plaintiff regarding the exemption of usage fees for harbor facilities due to the use of the land located in the area located in the area of the Yasan-si, Busan-si (hereinafter “instant site”) and the ground building (hereinafter “instant building”).

D. Accordingly, on July 7, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted a written opinion to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and applied for a re-deliberation on the said disposition. On September 11, 2017, at the Audit Council of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-deliberation.

E. On September 26, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to the Plaintiff for payment of KRW 116, 565, and 510 (including value-added tax) for the last five years from August 29, 2012 to August 28, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, 6, 8, 11, and 12 (if there are branches numbers, including the paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff 1:

1) The Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation designated by the Gun Industrial Complex to conduct cleaning business of the Gun Industrial Complex. The Plaintiff constitutes a “non-profit corporation that uses harbor facilities to manage a harbor facility or load and unload a harbor under the statutes related to the fees for the use of the harbor facilities in order to perform affairs entrusted or designated by the Gun Industrial Complex Management Authority, such as the management, expenses, cleaning, etc. of the harbor facilities within the harbor. Therefore, the Plaintiff is eligible for exemption from the fees for the use of the harbor facilities. Therefore, the instant disposition against the Plaintiff is illegal disposition

2) Even though the Plaintiff is not eligible for exemption from usage fees, the Plaintiff’s failure to pay usage fees for a considerable period of time is due to the fact that the Plaintiff believed that the exemption from usage fees was justifiable as a basis for the relevant laws and regulations regarding the usage fees of port facilities, and there is no reason for the Plaintiff’s trust to the Plaintiff, and such trust of the Plaintiff should be protected.

(b) Defendant;

1) The key issue of this case is whether or not the Plaintiff used harbor facilities in order to perform the duties entrusted or designated by the Port Management Office (Military and Fisheries Office). The Defendant did not entrust the Plaintiff with cleaning of harbor facilities, and the Plaintiff did not use harbor facilities to perform the duties entrusted or fixed by the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for exemption from usage fees under relevant statutes.

2) In the instant case, since the Defendant exempted the Plaintiff from the usage fee in the form of “under the conditions as prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the Defendant may impose the Plaintiff the exempted usage fee again. Such disposition is due to the significant public interest level, and the Plaintiff’s disposition cannot be asserted to the Defendant that the instant disposition violates the principle of trust protection.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Relevant provisions

As shown in the attached Form.

B. Relevant legal principles

Article 30 (4) of the Harbor Act provides that "the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, a harbor facility operator, or a lessee may collect user fees from persons who use the harbor facilities pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2): Provided, That a person prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries may be exempted from all or part of the user fees, and Article 27 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act provides that a person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs may be exempted from all or part of the user fees for the harbor facilities pursuant to the proviso of Article 30 (4) of the Harbor Act, and is listed as a non-permanent corporation related to marine transportation and harbor determined by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries (Article 4). Ultimately, a non-profit corporation related to marine transportation and harbor determined by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries may be exempted from all or part of the user fees for the harbor facilities.

On the other hand, in accordance with Article 9(2)2 of the Regulations on the Promotion of Harbor Facilities and User Fees of International Trade Port, Etc., a non-profit corporation that uses harbor facilities may be exempt from user fees for harbor facilities because it falls under a non-profit corporation related to a harbor as defined by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries under Article 27(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Harbor Act, for the management of a harbor or for the loading and unloading of a harbor under the provisions on delegation or entrustment

C. Determination

1) Whether the Defendant entrusted the Plaintiff with the cleaning of the port

A) First, we examine whether the Defendant entrusted or designated the cleaning of the port to the Plaintiff.

B) According to Gap evidence No. 8, it is recognized that the defendant (the defendant's name before the change of the defendant) notified the plaintiff (the Gunsan Loading Port Authority shall be the name before the change of the plaintiff) of the following as the official document of April 3, 1986 requesting cooperation and cooperation in the port cleaning systemization measures.

A person shall be appointed.

C) In light of the above facts of recognition, there is no room to regard that the defendant, as the plaintiff's assertion, entrusted the business of cleaning the port so that the plaintiff can appoint a regular cleaning department and effectively clean the port.

However, under Article 31(2) of the Regulations on the Operation of Military Harbor Facilities, the following facts and circumstances, which are acknowledged as adding the purport of arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 11 to the whole purport of arguments, namely, ① Port cleaning is responsible for the loading and unloading company, and port cleaning may be entrusted to another person, but even in this case, the loading and unloading company shall be responsible for its management, such as guidance and supervision. According to Article 31(3) of the same Act, if the loading and unloading company entrusts cleaning of a port, it shall be reported to the head of the loading and unloading company or the consignee of the loading and unloading company. The Administrator of the Administration provides that the agent of the cleaning of the port shall be the loading and unloading company, and ② The Plaintiff’s member company shall directly conduct cleaning of military ports on March 17, 200, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have agreed on the rate of the loading and unloading company’s operating rules to ensure that it can not be entrusted to the Plaintiff with cleaning of the loading and unloading company.

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the plaintiff does not fall under the substitute for exemption from user fees. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obliged to pay the user fees for port facilities.

2) Whether the instant disposition violates the principle of trust protection

A) Relevant legal principles

In general, in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of trust protection to an act of an administrative agency, first, an administrative agency should name a public opinion that is the subject of trust to an individual; second, an administrative agency should not be attributable to the individual when the statement of opinion is well-grounded; third, the individual should have trusted the statement of opinion; third, an administrative agency should have conducted any act in violation of the above statement of opinion; fourth, an administrative agency should have made a disposition contrary to the above statement of opinion so that the interests of an individual who trusted the statement of opinion may be infringed; fourth, if a certain administrative disposition satisfies these requirements, it is unlawful as it goes against the principle of trust protection unless it is likely to remarkably undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Du19070, Mar. 9, 199; 20046, Jun. 9, 2006; 109Du1630, Jan. 16, 2008).

B) Specific determination

According to the evidence Nos. 4 and 12-2, there is no dispute between the parties, or according to the defendant's notification of the permission to use the harbor facilities to the plaintiff around August 22, 2014, the defendant sent the following official documents to the plaintiff. The plaintiff applied for the permission to use the harbor facilities for military harbor facilities once every three years, and obtained the permission to use the harbor facilities from the defendant. The fact that the defendant was exempted from the user fees only once the payment of the user fees was made by the defendant.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

In addition to the above facts, considering the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff appears to have paid a rent lower than the rent that the Defendant may impose on trust in the measure of exemption from the use fee, and (b) the Defendant alleged that the notification of exemption from the use fee received by the Plaintiff was made in the form of “under the conditions as prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes without setting a certain amount,” but the above notification received by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a reservation expression, such as “the content of the notification shall be governed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the rules on the use of harbor facilities” (the Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8171 Decided July 26, 1996, which is invoked by the Defendant, is inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case, because the case is different); and (c) considering the fact that there is no special public interest need to impose retroactively the use fee on the Plaintiff, the instant disposition of exemption from the use fee of this case is unlawful as it infringes the Defendant’s trust.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim So-chul

Judges Song - Limit

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

/ Harbor Act

Article 30 (Use of Harbor Facilities, User Fees, etc.)

(4) The Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, a harbor facility operator, or a lessee shall formulate a harbor pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2).

User fees may be collected from persons who use snow: Provided, That those prescribed by Presidential Decree may be collected.

E. A fee may be fully or partially exempted. < Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; Act No. 11690, Mar. 2

March 24, 2014

Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act

Article 27 (Exemption from Charges for Using Harbor Facilities)

(1) A port of call for any of the following persons pursuant to the proviso to Article 30 (4) of the Act:

The full or partial exemption from the usage fees for only facilities may be made.

4. Non-profit corporations related to marine transportation and ports prescribed by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries.

Provisions concerning the use of harbor facilities, such as trade ports, and user fees;

Article 3 (Permission for Use of Harbor Facilities)

(1) A person who intends to use a harbor facility pursuant to Article 26 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Decree").

person shall file an application for the use of harbor facilities under subparagraph 1 or 3 of the form with the competent regional office of maritime affairs and fisheries.

The head of the Gu or Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayors, Do Governors, and Special Self-Governing Province Governor (hereinafter referred to as "harbor management authority").

(c) submit to it.

When submitting an application for permission for use of harbor facilities under paragraph (1), the name and location of the facility subject to application;

Where it is not possible to clearly indicate the area, etc., evidentiary documents, such as drawings, shall be attached, but the whole

It shall verify the relevant information by sharing administrative information under Article 21 (1) of the Self-Government Act;

, if any, may be omitted.

(3) The harbor management authority shall comply with Article 30 (3) of the Act with the details of an application for permission for use of harbor facilities.

(d) If the use does not interfere with the development plan, management, and operation of the harbor, it shall be

shall issue a permit for the use of a harbor facility under subparagraph 1 or 3 of the form;

of this section.

Article 9 (Scope of Exemption from Usage Fees, etc.)

(2) "Non-profit corporations related to marine transportation and harbors prescribed by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries" in Article 27 (1) 4 of the Decree

The term "corporation" means any of the following corporations:

2. Matters concerning the delegation or entrustment of individual Acts or administrative authority for the management of ports or the loading and unloading of ports;

Non-profit corporations that use harbor facilities to perform entrusted duties under paragraph (1).

m. Operational rules for port cleaning management (Rules of the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office No. 13)

Article 3 (Approval of Minister of Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) Expenses for a lawsuit shall be approved by the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office.

set forth in subsection (1) of this section.

Article 5 (Collection of Expenses)

(1) The cost shall be paid by the loading and unloading company which loads the cargo in question to the Association and the owner of the cargo.

shall be collected.

(2) A loading and unloading company may withhold the payment of costs for the reason that a shipper has not collected such costs from the shipper.

(2).

Article 6 (Prior Approval of Project Plan)

(1) The Association shall hold a business plan for the following year, including the number of cleaning workers, revenue, and expenditure, by December 20 each year.

The approval shall be obtained, and the head of the Gu may adjust unreasonable parts.

(2) If the project implementer implements the following year without obtaining approval for the project plan, the project plan for the preceding year shall be implemented.

to be executed under this subsection, and after approval of the project plan, the amount already executed under the project plan for the corresponding year shall be

subsection (1) shall be deemed to have been made.

Article 7 (Disposal of Wastes)

"Waste disposal company designated by the Korean Office" for garbage disposal company, general waste, etc. within the cleaning zone.

to be treated through such institution.

Article 8 (Direction of Cleaning)

The head of the Gu may order the Association to direct cleaning for cleanliness of harbors.

Article 9 (Fact-Finding Surveys)

The head of the Gu may conduct a fact-finding survey on the project execution matters, and, if necessary, collect expenses and collect houses.

A state of conduct, service, etc. may be inspected.

Article 10 (Administrative Instructions and Measures)

in order to achieve the purpose of this provision, the Administrator shall give necessary instructions to the Association or the relevant business entity;

order may be issued, and in the event of a violation, necessary measures, such as temporary suspension of business, may be taken.

(c)

Operational rules for Gunsan/Port Port Port Port Harbor Facilities

Article 31 (Maintenance of Cleanliness of Harbors)

(1) A person, etc. who uses harbor facilities shall maintain and operate a clean harbor.

shall make every effort.

(2) The loading company shall be responsible for cleaning harbors, and the loading and unloading company shall entrust cleaning of harbors to another person.

Even in such cases, loading and unloading companies shall be responsible for the management, such as supervision and supervision.

(3) Where a loading and unloading company entrusts cleaning of ports pursuant to paragraph (2), it shall report the details thereof to the Commissioner.

shall be required by the Administrator to maintain the hearing of the State, and the Administrator shall

the corporation. The end of this section.