1. The lower court, notwithstanding the purport of Article 13 of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act (amended by Act No. 11020, Aug. 4, 201; hereinafter “Act”), Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24443, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), and Article 11 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 1, Mar. 24, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”) that “the individual land price of the land adjacent to the relevant public waters is determined as the criteria for the calculation of occupancy or use fees (hereinafter “the occupancy or use fees”) of the said public waters, should be determined on the basis of the prices of adjacent public waters, which are similar in nature to that of the said public waters, and thus, should be construed on the premise that the Plaintiff’s use fees or use fees of the said land are unlawful merely based on the Plaintiff’s basic usage or use of the said public waters.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. According to Article 13(1) of the Act, Article 13(1)1 and (2) of the Enforcement Decree, and Article 11(2) [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Rule, a person who intends to occupy or use public waters shall obtain permission from the management agency of the public waters, and the management agency of the public waters shall collect occupancy or use fees from the person who has obtained the above permission, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. The occupancy or use fees shall be calculated by multiplying the price of land adjacent to the public waters by an amount equivalent to 3/100, and “price of land adjacent to the public waters” shall be calculated by multiplying by the price of land adjacent to the public waters. “Price of land adjacent to the public waters” refers to a publicly assessed individual land price under the Act on the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate if there are no land adjacent to the public waters, it means an arithmetic average of the prices of land adjacent to the public waters if there are several parcels of land adjacent to the public waters, and by taking into account the length adjacent to the public waters

According to the language and text of the foregoing relevant provision, where there is land adjacent to the relevant public waters occupied or used as the entry into the instant land, land which serves as the basis for calculating the occupancy or use fee of the public waters refers to land physically abutting on the occupancy or use part, and its purpose of use does not necessarily necessarily be identical or similar to the main purpose of use of the public waters (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du10833, Oct. 11, 2013, etc.).

B. According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the Defendant is aware of the fact that the Defendant calculated the occupancy or use fee of the public waters of this case on the basis of the arithmetic average of each individual individual land price of the land adjacent to the entry into the instant case according to the purport of the ruling by the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant disposition was unlawful on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, and it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “price of land adjacent to public waters” under Article 13(1)1 and (2) of the Enforcement Decree.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)