1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

According to Articles 42(1) and 73(2)2 of the State Property Act, where the loan charges, etc. for State-owned general property have not been paid by the payment deadline, a person entrusted with the affairs concerning the administration and disposal of State-owned general property may collect the loan charges, etc. by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions on dispositions on default under Article 23 of the National Tax Collection Act and the same Act. As such, the collection of loan charges, etc. for State-owned general property is simple and economic remedy procedures are established, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, seeking the payment of the loan charges, etc. by civil procedure is not allowed

In the same purport, the lower court determined that the part of the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of rent, etc. under the loan agreement on the instant real estate, which is a State-owned general property, is unlawful as there is no benefit

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the benefit of protection

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s assertion that the provision of Article 3 of the instant loan agreement is invalid as an unfair provision that uses the Defendant’s poor condition, or that it cannot be deemed invalid as an unfair provision unfavorable to customers in violation of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, and that the instant loan agreement cannot be deemed as merely an extension of the previous loan agreement, and thus, it is unreasonable to accept the Defendant’s assertion that the instant loan agreement

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "a clause unreasonably unfavorable to a customer" as prescribed by the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, and as to unfair legal acts and extension of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)