Whether a person who has obtained a license to reclaim public waters acquires the right to use the reclaimed land for official or public use.

According to Article 12-2(1) of the Harbor Act and Article 5-10(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport allows the operator of the harbor facility construction to use the harbor facilities free of charge until the fee reaches the price, but this is limited to allowing the State to use the harbor facilities free of charge to the construction contractor within the meaning of compensation or benefit in return for the ownership of the harbor facilities. In the case of a license for reclamation of public waters, the license holder obtains the ownership of the reclaimed land at the same time as the authorization of completion of reclamation works, and allows the State or local government to acquire the reclaimed land equivalent to the cost of reclamation works. As such, the license holder for reclamation of public waters shall not acquire the right to gratuitously use the reclaimed land portion reverted to the State or local government only on the ground that the license holder completed the reclamation works.

Article 14 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, Article 20 of its Enforcement Decree, Article 12-2 of the Harbor Act, Article 5-10 of its Enforcement Decree

The administrator of assistance in the liquidation corporation of the liquidation corporation

Busan Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

1. On December 31, 1987, the part that exceeds 12,017,136 won in the disposition of KRW 14,108,640, out of the disposition of imposition of KRW 12,017,136, of KRW 14,00,00 for the rent of 22-13 and 14 located in Dobong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, where the Defendant rendered against the non-party reorganization Corporation for the shipbuilding Corporation.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Seven minutes of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff and the remainder are assessed against the defendant.

The disposition of imposition of paragraph (1) shall be revoked.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The plaintiff, who had no dispute over the establishment of Gap 1, 3, 4, 5 and Eul 1, 2-1, 9-1, 2-1, 10-2, 13, and 14-2 of the above Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act; the Corporation for the Restructuring Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the non-party company") shall investigate the facts of the above 1, 3, 4, 5 and 2-1, 6-1, 5 of the above Act for the total period of 1, 86-1, 50, 197, 196-1, 6-1, 2, 3, 97, 196-1, 2, 97, 16-1, 2, 3, 97, 16-1, 500, 16-1, 97, 197, 196, 197, 3,000

2. The plaintiff's 26 square meters above is the non-party company's construction of 378,765,00 won out of the total expenses of reclamation works 50,000 won and donated land to the State. Thus, the non-party company's construction of 28,765,00 won and Article 12-2 (1) of the Harbor Act and Article 5-11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act can be used free of charge until September 14, 2090 when the construction charges amount to non-party company's 26 square meters below the above reclamation charges, but the defendant's disposition of this case which imposed the above usage charges on the non-party company cannot be applied to the non-party company for the same purpose as the non-party company's construction charges for the non-party company's construction of 20,000 won because the non-party company's construction charges for the non-party company's construction of public waters cannot be applied to the non-party company's construction charges for the same purpose.

However, according to Articles 71 and 73 of the Budget and Accounts Act, the user fee prior to January 1, 1983 exceeding five years prior to the date of the instant disposition, which was retroactively from December 31, 1987, which was the date of the instant disposition, shall be extinguished by prescription. Thus, when calculating the indemnity amount of 120/100 of the user fee from January 1, 1983 to July 7, 1987, the indemnity amount shall be KRW 12,017,136, as stated in the separate sheet of calculation of indemnity.

3. Thus, the part of the defendant's disposition of this case exceeding the above 12,017,136 won in excess of the above 12,00,136 won should be revoked as illegal. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are without merit, and it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act

Judges Cho Jin-Jin-Jin (Presiding Judge)