건물명도(인도)
The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance on this part shall be rendered.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Part demanding the payment of usage fees
(a) An act of imposing usage fees on a person who has obtained permission to use and benefit from any administrative property or conservation property after the office of administration of state property grants permission to use and benefit from such property or conservation property is an administrative disposition conducted in a superior position of the public authority, and where a person who has obtained permission to use and benefit from such property fails to pay usage fees despite a legitimate disposition of imposition of usage fees, the office of administration may collect usage fees and additional dues pursuant to the provisions of the National Tax Collection Act
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da29087, Feb. 8, 2002)
The judgment below
According to the reasoning and records, on July 22, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) on the instant real estate, which is a welfare facility (administrative property) within the Decree of the 111th Air Force (FF) of the Air Force Act, the Plaintiff granted permission for the use of State-owned property for a fixed period of KRW 193,880,000, the annual rent was paid from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2017; and (b) on November 1, 2016, revoked the Defendant’s permission for the use of the instant real estate on the ground that the Defendant was delinquent.
The Plaintiff is seeking the payment of unpaid usage fees and late payment fees by this part of the lawsuit, but considering the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff, if the Defendant did not pay usage fees, may allow the head of the competent tax office, etc. to collect usage fees and late payment charges pursuant to Article 73(2) of the State Property Act pursuant to the provisions on disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act. Therefore, this part of the lawsuit seeking its implementation by
Nevertheless, the lower court did not dismiss this part of the lawsuit, and further determined on the merits. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the procedure for collecting usage fees imposed on administrative property.