beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged facts as indicated in its reasoning, and subsequently amended by Act No. 9401 of Jan. 30, 2009 as to the land of this case, Article 64(1) of the former Urban Planning Act (repealed by Act No. 6655 of Feb. 4, 2002; Act No. 9401 of Jan. 30, 2009)
(a) The same shall apply;
2) Article 24 of the former State Property Act provides that “The State shall grant permission for use or profit-making pursuant to Article 24 of the former State Property Act and Article 26 subparag. 2 of the former State Property Act (hereinafter “State Property Act”) and Article 26 subparag. 2 of the former State Property Act provides that “The State shall grant permission for use or profit-making pursuant to Article 26 subparag. 2 of the former State Property Act.” In light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s determination is justifiable.” In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding Article 24 of the former State Property Act.”
hereinafter referred to as “unauthorized occupant”
A) Under Article 51(1) of the former State Property Act, an indemnity may be imposed pursuant to Article 51(4) and (5) of the same Act, and the National Tax Collection Act may apply mutatis mutandis to the imposition of indemnity against an illegal occupant of State property. 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 upon the imposition of indemnity is a right under public law, whereas the civil right to claim restitution for unjust enrichment is a claim under private law, which is the owner of State property (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da42197, Apr. 14, 192). In addition, the indemnity is equivalent to 120% of the rent or fee, which serves