[1] Whether the head of a local government is an administrative disposition to refuse a loan application for a national miscellaneous property (negative)

[2] Whether the collection of indemnity against unauthorized possession of State property is bound (affirmative)

[1] The rejection of an application by the head of a local government to lend a state-owned miscellaneous property is not an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, and it cannot be claimed for its revocation by administrative litigation.

[2] The requirements for collecting indemnity against illegal possession of State property are clearly stipulated in Article 51 (1) of the State Property Act (amended by Act No. 4968 of Jan. 5, 1994). Thus, whether to collect indemnity is a binding act that does not allow the discretion of the disposition agency, and there is no room for the issue of deviation from and abuse of discretionary power.

[1] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition], 2, 4, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 51 (1) of the State Property Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu17325 delivered on April 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1472), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1105 delivered on February 27, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 923), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu14036 delivered on July 10, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2125), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu16438 delivered on September 4, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2420)

Plaintiff 1 and three others

The head of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu12732 delivered on March 25, 1998

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The defendant's rejection of the plaintiffs' application for the lending of state-owned miscellaneous property is not an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, and it cannot be claimed as an administrative litigation for revocation.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the grounds of appeal are not accepted

2. Article 51(1) of the State Property Act (amended by Act No. 4968 of Jan. 5, 1994) provides that a person who continues to occupy, use, or profit from State property without obtaining a loan, use, or profit-making permit, etc. after the expiration of the period of lease, use, or profit-making permit shall collect indemnity from the person who has continuously occupied, use, or profit-making from State property. Thus, if the defendant refused the plaintiffs' application to request a re-lease of the land of this case and requested its return, even though the

In addition, since the requirements for collecting indemnity are clearly stipulated in Article 51 (1) of the State Property Act, whether to collect indemnity is a binding act that does not allow the disposition agency's discretion, and there is no room to cause any problem of deviation or abuse of discretionary power.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, this ground of appeal is not accepted

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)