The nature of compensation payment following a report on concealed State property;

The state's compensation payment to a person reporting concealed state property under Article 6 of the Addenda of the State Property Act is not a public authority of the State, but a simple private economic entity, so it is not an object of administrative litigation.

Article 6 of the Addenda to the State Property Act, Article 5 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Daejeon District Court (76Gahap5) in the first instance

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 6,562,00 won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from January 23, 1976 to the full payment. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

(1)First, I will examine the defendant's main defense of safety.

The defendant litigation performer argues that the plaintiff's compensation following the plaintiff's declaration of state-owned property concealment against the defendant is not compensation by nature, but compensation by bonus compensation by the state which is the person holding the right of bonus, which is not compensation by the administrative procedure, and therefore, this claim is unjust. Thus, Article 6 of the Addenda of the State Property Act provides that a reasonable compensation may be paid to the person who reported or reported the concealed state-owned property under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 5 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act provides that when the head of the government agency concerned has received a report on the concealed state-owned property, the amount equivalent to 20 percent of the value of the property shall be paid as compensation after the determination of the state-owned property is made. In full view of these compensation regulations, it appears that the state-owned state-owned property under the Act is merely a mere private economic entity, not a public authority of the State, and therefore, the above assertion is not subject to administrative litigation.

(2) Therefore, I will examine the merits.

The real estate in the attached list (A) is owned by the defendant from its original date, and the plaintiff found the fact that the plaintiff illegally obtained ownership transfer registration or preservation registration was made, and on November 29, 1975, it reported to the Daejeon Daejeon District Tax Office under the defendant Culture and Arts, that the real estate was concealed, and thus the defendant recovered all of the real estate until December 29, 1975 and taken national measures to nationalize it is no dispute between the parties. According to the result of the appraisal by the non-party 2 by the non-party 2, the market price at the time of the conclusion of the argument by the court below at the above real estate can be recognized as the same fact as that in the attached list (b) and

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff an amount equivalent to 20 percent of the property price as compensation within the extent not exceeding 1,00,000 won in accordance with Article 6 of the Addenda of the State Property Act and Article 5 (3) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and it is obvious that the amount is the same as the entry in the attached list (c).

(3) Consultations

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of the above (c) sum of KRW 6,562,00 and the amount of damages for the suspension of the Civil Act by the rate of five percent per annum from January 23, 1976 to the full payment system, which is obvious in the record that the copy of the complaint is delivered to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff is justified, and the judgment of the court that forms the above conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 89 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of the costs of lawsuit.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Judge)