[1] Whether a claim for indemnity based on the disposition of imposition of indemnity under Article 51 (1) of the State Property Act may be made by means of civil procedure (negative)

[2] Person holding the authority to impose indemnity under Article 51 (1) of the State Property Act (=management authority)

[3] The case holding that it is reasonable to view that an incorporated association, which was designated as a cargo manager of a designated storage place by the head of the Kimpo-si as a cargo manager of the designated storage place, has occupied and used an office in the building of the Kimpo-airport cargo warehouse in addition to the control and use relation of the designated storage place as an independent entity

[1] The disposition of imposing indemnity under Article 51 (1) of the State Property Act is an administrative disposition imposed on a person who uses any State property without permission by the relevant office of administration. According to Articles 51 (2) and 25 (3) of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 6072 of Dec. 31, 199), and Article 51 (3) of the current State Property Act, in a case where a person who uses any State property without permission fails to pay indemnity under Article 51 of the State Property Act, the office of administration shall delegate it to the head of the competent tax office or the head of the local government to collect indemnity pursuant to the provisions on the disposition of arrears under the National Tax Collection Act. Thus, a claim for indemnity based on the disposition of imposing indemnity under Article 51 (1) of the State Property

[2] According to Article 6 of the State Properties Act, since an office of administration, which is the head of the central government agency under Article 14 of the Budget and Accounts Act, manages the state property under his jurisdiction, the person who is subject to the disposition of imposing indemnity under Article 51 (1) of the State Properties

[3] The case holding that it is reasonable to view that an incorporated association, which was designated as a cargo manager of a designated storage place by the head of the Kimpo-si, has occupied and used an office in the building of the Kimpo-airport cargo warehouse as an independent entity, separate from the control and use relationship with the designated storage place

[1] Article 51(1) and (3) of the State Property Act, Article 51(2) (see current Article 51(2) and (3) and Article 25(3) of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 6072 of Dec. 31, 199) / [2] Article 51(1) of the State Property Act / [3] Article 51(1) of the State Property Act / [3] Article 51(1) of the State Property Act, Articles 192, 195, and 741 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1046, 1047 decided Feb. 23, 198 (Gong1988, 616) Supreme Court Decision 91Da42197 decided Apr. 14, 1992 (Gong192, 1581)

Korea Airport Corporation (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorneys Park Yong-pon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Association (Law Firm Hoh, Attorneys Cho Jae-seok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na46029 delivered on May 2, 2000

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. Summary of the judgment below

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below, based on the evidence of the court below, found the defendant's 1's office and 64.95m2 of this case's non-profit cargo storage (the total size of 7,64.95m2 of this case's office and 97m2 of this case's office and 97m2 of this case's office and 97m2 of this case's office and 97m2 of this case's office and 197m2's office and 9m2's office and 9m2's office and 9m2's office and 9m2's office and 7m2 of this case's office and 9m2's office and 9m2's office and 5m2's office and 97m2's office and 97m2's office and 97m2's office and 97m2's office and 97m2's office and 97m2'

2. We examine the legality of the primary claim of this case ex officio.

The disposition of imposition of indemnity under Article 51(1) of the State Properties Act is an administrative disposition imposed on a person who uses any State property without permission, and according to Articles 51(2) and 25(3) of the former State Properties Act (amended by Act No. 6072, Dec. 31, 199) and Article 51(3) of the current State Properties Act, in a case where an unauthorized user of State property fails to pay indemnity under Article 51 of the State Properties Act, the Office of Administration may delegate it to the head of the competent tax office or the head of the competent local government to collect indemnity under the provisions on the disposition of arrears under the National Tax Collection Act. Thus, the claim of indemnity based on the disposition of imposition of indemnity under Article 51(1) of the State Properties Act cannot be a civil method

Furthermore, according to Article 6 of the State Property Act, since an office of administration, which is the head of the central government agency under Article 14 of the Budget and Accounts Act, manages the state property under its jurisdiction, the person entitled to impose indemnity under Article 51 (1) of the State Property Act shall also be the office of administration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu1046, 1047, Feb. 23, 198; 91Da42197, Apr. 14, 1992). Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have the authority to impose indemnity for the building, which is merely the one permitted and approved by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, who is the office of administration of the building without cargo storage in this case for free use, profit-making, and sublease.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim of this case is unlawful, and the judgment of the court below on the merits of this case is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the benefit and necessity of protection of rights, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. As to the conjunctive claim

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below and the records, the designated storage place designated by the head of Kimpo-si pursuant to Article 73 of the Customs Act is limited to the first floor of the building of free cargo storage; the office of this case is part of the second floor of the building, which is its office, and the plaintiff refused to apply for the free use of the office of the head of Kimpo-si; the second floor of the building is the office used by the bank and cargo transportation company, in addition to the office used by the defendant; the office of this case is a signboard "out the office used by the bank and the cargo transportation company"; the office of this case is a signboard "out the office's office"; the office of this case is a "cargo management office of the designated storage place"; the office of this case has a book and document file for employees other than the work of the defendant's employees; the office of this case is equipped with computerized processing related to the shipment of goods of the designated storage place; preparation of import declaration register and import declaration report; preparation and inquiry of goods; information and documents for prompt customs clearance.

B. If the facts are as above, the defendant has independently used the office of this case in order to obtain profits from the work of loading and unloading, storing, repackaging, etc. of the goods within the designated place, based on the service charges in the name of fees received from the owners of the goods that were designated by the head of the Kimpo-si as a cargo manager of the designated place, and the defendant used the office of this case in order to obtain profits from the work of loading and unloading, storing, and repackaging, etc. of the goods within the designated place. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant occupied and used the office of this case as the independent owner of the office of this case, separate from the control and use relation of the designated place, since the office of this case was part of the work of this case that the defendant provided from the owner of the goods in return for the payment from the owner of the goods. It is difficult to view that the office of this case was actually used by the defendant under the direction of the head of Kimpo-si, or that the office of this case was related to the work of the designated place.

C. Therefore, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's conjunctive claim of this case on the ground that the defendant's use relation to the office of this case should be the same as the designated storage place, and there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the relation of possession and possession assistance, or by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The part pointing

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed as to the main claim and the conjunctive claim in this case, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)