The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The former Public Property and Commodity Management Act (amended by Act No. 1006, Feb. 4, 2010; hereinafter “Public Property Act”) divides public property into administrative property and general property in accordance with its use (Article 5(1)); all public property other than administrative property is determined as general property (Article 5(3)); and (2) prohibits any loan, sale, exchange, trust, payment in kind, or payment in kind; or establishment of a private right to such property without any purpose (Article 19(1) main text): Provided, That where the head of a local government permits use or profit-making within the extent that the purpose or purpose of use is not hindered; and where he/she permits use or profit-making, he/she shall annually collect usage fees in accordance with the rate and calculation method prescribed by Presidential Decree (Articles 20(1) and 22(1)3); and (3) a private right to lease, exchange or trust with respect to general property may be established; and where it is prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes or municipal ordinances, he/she may permit payment in kind or loan agreement.

(Article 32(1) of the Public Property Act provides that general property cannot be subject to permission for use and benefit, unlike administrative property, and becomes subject to loan contracts, and the disposition of permission for use and benefit and the disposition of fees for use and benefit are separate dispositions that differ from the subject of application, the basis of law and the legal effect.

In addition, even if administrative property is discontinued for public use, it is the general property by losing its nature as administrative property, and it is restricted by the Public Property Act.