The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

1. The State shall impose indemnity on a person who occupies, uses, or benefits from State property without obtaining a lease, use, or benefit from the State property (including a person who continues to occupy, use, or benefits from State property without obtaining a lease, use or benefit from the State property again after the lease, use or benefit from the State property expires; hereinafter “unauthorized occupant”) pursuant to Article 51(1) of the former State Property Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9401, Jan. 30, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply), and may collect indemnity by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of dispositions on default under the National Tax Collection Act pursuant to Article 51(4) and (5)

However, the imposition of indemnity against the illegal occupant of state property is an administrative disposition conducted in the superior position of the public authority, and the right to collect indemnity by the imposition of indemnity is a right under the public law, while the civil right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment is a claim under the private law.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da42197 delivered on April 14, 1992). In addition, an indemnity amounting to 120% of the loan charges or usage fees, which serve as the basis for calculating unjust enrichment, is different from the amount of unjust enrichment. The purpose of imposing and collecting indemnity for the increased amount of money is to realize the public interest, such as efficient preservation and management of state property, beyond the restitution of profits accruing from the use of and benefit from state property.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Du11463 Decided May 15, 2008; 2005Du11463 Decided the property without the loan or use and profit-making permit; however, in cases where the imposition of indemnity is not possible, the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment under the civil law is established. Thus, the requirements for imposing indemnity and establishing the right to claim

Article 51(1), (4), and (5) of the former State Property Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du7732, Mar. 24, 2000).