The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Article 32(1)12 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9401, Jan. 30, 2009; hereinafter “former Act”) which regulates rearrangement projects, such as housing redevelopment projects, provides that the implementer of the housing redevelopment project and the urban environment rearrangement project, among the rearrangement projects, shall be deemed to have obtained permission for use and profit-making under Article 24 of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 9401, Jan. 30, 2009; hereinafter “former State Property Act”). Article 24 of the former State Property Act provides that administrative property and preservation property as state property subject to permission for use and profit-making.

The key issue of the instant case is whether each of the instant lands located within the housing redevelopment project zone constitutes an administrative property considered to have obtained permission for use or profit in accordance with the above provisions.

Examining the record in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Plaintiff, who is the implementer of a housing redevelopment project, is deemed to have obtained permission for use or profit-making under the former State Property Act with respect to each of the above land, as administrative property falling under a road or children’s park, as the instant land, is deemed to have obtained permission for use or profit-making under the former State Property Act, upon obtaining authorization for the instant project implementation, where the relevant land is designated under the statutes, or has been determined to be used for public purposes as an administrative disposition, or where it is actually used as administrative property (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du107

In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 32(1)12 of the former Act.

2. As to the second ground of appeal, a disposition imposing indemnity may not be taken against a person who has a legitimate legal status to use, benefit from, or occupy State property, and against this.