[1] The case holding that it does not constitute a case where public property is occupied, used, or profit-making for a certain period due to unavoidable reasons such as countermeasures against disasters

[2] Method of assessing the value of public property, which is the basis for calculating compensation for unauthorized occupancy of public property

[1] The case holding that it does not constitute a case where public property is occupied, used or profit-making for a certain period due to unavoidable reasons such as countermeasures against disasters, etc.

[2] The appraisal of the value of the public property to be imposed on illegal occupancy of the public property shall be based on the condition at which the possessor commences the occupancy unless there are special circumstances. The state of the land at the time of commencement of the occupancy shall be assessed in consideration of not only the land category in the public register but also the actual state of the use period.

[1] Article 87 (1) 2 of the former Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 4795 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 51 of the State Property Act / [2] Article 87 (1) of the former Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 4795 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 105 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act; Article 51 of the State Property Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15857 delivered on April 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1592), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu10234 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1340), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2510 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2651)

The Housing Improvement Development Cooperatives in Zone 2-1 (Attorney Kim Byung-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seo Law Firm, Attorneys Park Sang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu19787 delivered on January 31, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

A. Article 87(1) of the Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 4795 of Dec. 22, 1994) provides that a person who occupies, uses, or benefits from a public property without obtaining a loan, use, or profit-making permit, etc. of a public property under this Act or other Acts shall collect a loan fee or indemnity for the relevant property under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree: Provided, That in any of the following cases, no indemnity shall be collected, and subparagraph 2 provides that the State or a local government shall occupy, use, or benefit from a public property for a certain period of time due to unavoidable reasons, such as countermeasures against disasters, etc.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant (the head of Guro-gu, the head of Guro-gu, the same applies hereinafter) inevitably permitted the plaintiff to purchase the land of this case before purchasing the land of this case in terms of countermeasures against disasters, and thus excluded from the object of indemnity collection. According to the evidences of macroscopic evidence, although the plaintiff union obtained from the defendant on April 15, 192 the approval for the establishment of housing improvement redevelopment partnership and the approval for the implementation of the project within the redevelopment project district of this case on July 15, 1992, the plaintiff submitted a report on the commencement of apartment construction to be constructed against the defendant before purchasing the land of this case on July 15, 199, and the defendant submitted a report on the commencement of the project within the redevelopment project area of this case on July 21, 1987 before purchasing the land of this case. The defendant could not be found to have any other evidence to support the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff should use the land of this case without compensation.

In light of the relevant statutes and the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are all acceptable, and the defendant entrusted matters concerning the management and disposal of the land of this case to the non-party Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor pursuant to the provisions of relevant statutes can impose and collect the indemnity against the possessor, etc. of the land. Therefore, the judgment below cannot be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit or by violating the rules of evidence.

B. The appraisal of the value of public property for calculating the amount of indemnity imposed on illegal occupancy of public property is based on the condition at which the possessor begins possession, unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2510 delivered on September 9, 1994). The state of land at the time of commencement of possession should be assessed in consideration of not only the land category in the public register but also the actual state of the use period (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu10234 delivered on March 22, 1994).

According to the facts duly established by the court below, when the non-party Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor implements an urban improvement policy between 1960 and 1972, he designated the whole land of this case, which is the original state-owned land, as a living settlement place for the removal of Yeongdeungpo-gu and Yongsan-gu, etc., and as a result, it was necessary to build up a building without permission at the same place and improve the housing site, the housing improvement redevelopment project was carried out as stated in its reasoning. The compensation of this case was imposed and notified on the land of this case among the land of this case. The plaintiff association occupied the land of this case from July 20, 1992 when the construction of the apartment was commenced on the land of this case. Accordingly, if the facts are as above, it is without merit to further examine the theory on the premise that the plaintiff was the state of the land at the time of occupying the land of this case, and it

2. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal and the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the lapse of the period as well as the supplemental appellate brief.

The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff association should pay indemnity from April 16, 1987 to April 15, 192, since the Plaintiff’s owner of the land without permission building on this case’s land constituted the Plaintiff association, as well as the Plaintiff’s overall redevelopment project promotion committee, occupied the land from its organization, and thus, the Plaintiff association should pay indemnity from April 16, 1987 to April 15, 192. According to the evidence, the land of this case’s land among the instant land was used as the site until the time when the Plaintiff started the construction work on the land within the redevelopment project zone after the removal of the building without permission, and it was difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s construction project promotion committee started the construction work on the land within the redevelopment project zone’s redevelopment project zone’s land with the approval of the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on October 14, 1985, and it was difficult to conclude the Plaintiff’s establishment registration on this case’s land as a special corporation for the construction of the Plaintiff association.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are all acceptable, and even if the plaintiff union is a corporation that performs a project, such as management and profit by delegation of the whole members' property within the union's workplace by representing and representing the whole members, it cannot be deemed that it is delegated to the company's liability for payment of indemnity incurred by illegal occupation and use of the union members before the approval of the redevelopment project is granted, barring any special circumstance. Thus, there is no error of law like the theory of lawsuit in the judgment

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

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)