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

A. The building of this case was originally owned by the Nonparty, while the Nonparty paid in kind the land and the building of this case to the State around June 1998, it was owned by the State around that time. The Defendant was entrusted by the Minister of Finance and Economy on November 3, 1998 with the affairs concerning the management and disposal of each of the instant land and each of the instant buildings. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835, Nov. 3, 1998>

B. From May 26, 1997, the Plaintiff operated a motor vehicle maintenance plant in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 3, 4 omitted) and its two above-ground buildings adjacent to each of the instant land and buildings.

C. On December 5, 2001, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff occupied and used each of the instant land and buildings from August 31, 1998 to December 4, 2001 without permission,” and requested the Plaintiff to voluntarily order each of the instant land and buildings, but accepted the Plaintiff’s objection and imposed indemnity of KRW 95,620,970 on the Plaintiff on April 29, 2002.

D. Thereafter, on October 10, 2002, the Defendant calculated the indemnity amounting to KRW 690,477,265, and thereafter, imposed the indemnity amounting to KRW 594,856,30 (calculated below KRW 00) after deducting KRW 95,620,970 paid by the Plaintiff from the indemnity amounting to April 29, 2002.

E. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant seeking revocation of the disposition imposing additional indemnity as of October 10, 2002. On August 25, 2005, the Seoul High Court, which caused the appellate court, rendered a judgment revoking the above disposition imposing additional indemnity in excess of KRW 314,05,082, among the above disposition imposing additional indemnity on August 25, 2005. The judgment became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court on May 15, 2008.

F. On July 3, 2008, the Defendant again issued a disposition to impose indemnity on the Plaintiff, stating that “The additional indemnity amounting to KRW 314,05,082,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 from December 9, 2002, which is the due date for payment of the above additional indemnity, plus KRW 235,40,05,060,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won

G. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing indemnity on July 3, 2008. The Seoul High Court, which is the legal ground of the appellate court, in the case No. 2009Nu15601, Dec. 24, 2009, which became lawful by the judgment among the above disposition imposing indemnity on Oct. 10, 2002, which became final and conclusive by the judgment on Oct. 10, 2002, the part seeking the revocation of the above part cannot be seen as an administrative disposition that is the object of an appeal litigation because it is not a new disposition imposing indemnity but a new disposition demanding the payment of the remaining portion among the previous additional indemnity, and the part seeking the revocation of the above part is revoked on the ground that it did not mention the rate that is the basis of the calculation of the late payment charge and the provisions on the method of calculating the late payment charge on the detailed application thereof, and the judgment was finalized on April 29, 2010.

H. On March 18, 2010, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that imposed and notified the overdue interest of KRW 235,670,375 (the amount calculated by deducting KRW 265,310 for overdue interest of KRW 235,405,065) calculated at 15% per annum from December 10, 2002 to December 10, 207, the overdue interest of KRW 314,05,082.

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including a tentative number)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) After imposing the additional indemnity on October 10, 2002, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing the amount of the late payment penalty on July 3, 2008, and thereafter issued the instant disposition again after the disposition was revoked by the judgment. Since the extinctive prescription of October 11, 2007, which was five years from October 10, 2002, the date of the disposition imposing the additional indemnity, the right to impose the late payment penalty, has expired, the extinctive prescription of October 11, 2007, it was unlawful.

(B) Considering the fact that the Plaintiff continued to use each of the instant lands and buildings upon the invitation of Defendant employees, the Plaintiff’s excessive amount of indemnity imposed on October 10, 2002, and the overdue interest rate of 12% to 15% per annum, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful against the principle of proportionality and the purport of the indemnification system.

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) Article 73(2) of the State Property Act provides that a provision on disposition on default under Article 23 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 23 of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the State Property Act. However, national taxes distinguish the right to impose national taxes from the right to impose national taxes and the right to collect national taxes, and the right to collect national taxes shall apply only to the exclusion period system, and the right to collect national taxes shall expire only after the establishment of the right to impose national taxes. Therefore, there is no room to apply extinctive prescription only to the right to impose the late payment penalty under the State Property Act, and there is no provision on the exclusion period under the National Finance

(B) The Plaintiff did not pay the above additional indemnity until now. The late payment charge on indemnity is imposed as a sanction against the person who failed to perform the obligation to pay indemnity, so the instant disposition is lawful as long as such nonperformance of obligation continues.

(C) Even if the right to impose the late payment penalty is subject to the application of extinctive prescription, since the interruption of prescription became effective by the disposition on July 3, 2008, the instant disposition is lawful prior to the completion of prescription.

(D) The Defendant’s employee did not encourage the Plaintiff to continue to use each of the instant land and buildings, and even if there were such facts, such fact can only constitute an unlawful ground for the imposition of indemnity, and it cannot be deemed an unlawful ground for the instant disposition, which is the disposition imposing late payment penalty.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

First, we examine whether the instant disposition was made after the completion of the extinctive prescription of the right to impose the late payment penalty.

The defendant's assertion that the right to impose and collect national taxes is subject to exclusion period and extinctive prescription period for the right to impose and collect national taxes under the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, since the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 9401, Jan. 30, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) which provides the basis of the disposition of this case does not distinguish the right to impose and collect indemnity, both the right to impose and the right to impose indemnity shall be deemed as subject to the five-year extinctive prescription under the National Finance Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du5686, Feb. 10, 2006).

However, the defendant's imposition of additional indemnity on October 10, 202 with the due date for payment as of December 9, 2002 on the plaintiff on December 9, 2002 shall be as mentioned above. In accordance with Article 51 (2) of the former State Property Act and Articles 44 (3) and 56 (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21641 of July 27, 2009), when the defendant fails to pay the indemnity by the due date, the defendant may impose late payment charge. Thus, the statute of limitations on the right to impose late payment charge on the above additional indemnity shall run from December 10, 202, which is the day following the due date for payment of additional indemnity.

In addition, the defendant's disposition imposing late July 3, 2008 late 2008 late 2007 late 200 after the extinctive prescription of the right to impose late 200.

Therefore, the instant disposition taken on March 18, 2010 imposed the late payment charge after the completion of the extinctive prescription of the right to impose the late payment charge on the said additional indemnity. Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful without examining the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Cho Min-soo