[2] The case holding that the Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act prior to the amendment shall apply to a non-management authority's calculation of total project cost related to the scope of the right to use harbor facilities, where the Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act, which is included in the total project cost related to the scope of the right to use harbor facilities from the non-management authority to the completion of the harbor facilities, is disadvantageous to the non-management authority

[2] The case holding that the Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act, which is included in the total project cost related to the scope of the right to use harbor facilities by a non-management authority, should be applied to the calculation of total project cost on the ground that, where the Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act, which is included in the total project cost related to the scope of the right to use harbor facilities by the non-management authority, was revised disadvantageously to the non-management authority, the total project cost cannot be deemed to be excessive even if the interest on the construction was calculated pursuant to the former Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act before the amendment, and that, on the premise that the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act, which is subject to the application

2. The facts admitted by the court below in this case are as follows.

A. On August 27, 1992, the Plaintiff started the construction of a steel product exclusive for steel products with the permission of the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries from the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries on July 1, 1994 and completed the construction on April 30, 199, and issued the completion certificate from the chief of Musan Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office on May 29, 199.

B. The chief of Msan regional maritime affairs and fisheries office, upon issuing the certificate of completion to the Plaintiff, recognized the Plaintiff’s total project cost as KRW 53,059,616,50,00, including the construction interest of KRW 13,912,89,616,50. According to the audit and inspection by the Board of Audit and Inspection, the construction interest shall be calculated by applying the “average interest rate on fixed deposits in six commercial banks” as of September 16, 199, and the construction interest shall be calculated as KRW 5,474,94,651, and accordingly, the total project cost shall be calculated as KRW 43,77,926,116.

C. When calculating the Plaintiff’s total project cost by applying the loan interest rate applied by a financial institution at the time of completion of the Plaintiff’s exclusive-use franchise construction, the amount of KRW 50,462,574,779 is calculated.

3. After recognizing the above facts, the court below confirmed that since the total project cost calculated pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act at the time of completion of the harbor project as at the time of completion of the project causes a significant damage to the plaintiff, it is highly necessary to protect the plaintiff's trust that the law at the time of planning the harbor project continues to apply, while the damage to the public interest arising from the application of the former Enforcement Decree is limited to the reduction of the user fee, and that the infringement of the plaintiff's trust on the ground of this degree of public interest violates the principle of trust protection. The plaintiff confirmed that the plaintiff has the right to use the harbor facility belonging to the defendant from May 1, 1999 to 43,77,97,926,116 won exceeding 50,462,574,779 won without compensation.

4. The non-management authority’s right of free use of harbor facilities is attributed to the State upon completion of the harbor facilities, and the contents of the right of free use also arise pursuant to the Harbor Act. Thus, in principle, the law that is enforced at the time of completion of the harbor facilities, which is the time of occurrence of the right. However, in a case where the enforcement decree of the Harbor Act was amended disadvantageously to the non-management authority after the permission of execution of the harbor works, if it is recognized that the non-management authority’s trust in the former enforcement decree is more protected than the public interest demand for the application of the amended enforcement decree, the application of the amended enforcement decree

In this case, the plaintiff's interest in the construction of this case shall be calculated by the loan interest rate of a financial institution under the former Enforcement Decree, and the total project cost shall not be deemed to be excessive than the actual cost. The plaintiff suffered unexpected disadvantage at the time of commencement of the harbor project as the amended Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act applies, and the plaintiff's interest in the project of this case is more worth protecting than the demand for public interest to apply the amended Enforcement Decree under the premise that the former Enforcement Decree shall be applied. Therefore, the calculation of total project cost related to the harbor project of this case shall be in accordance with the provisions of the former Enforcement Decree. In the same purport, the court below determined that the calculation of interest in the construction included in the total project cost of the plaintiff shall be in accordance with the provisions of the former Enforcement Decree, and there is no error

5. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne, as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)