The meaning of "where it is impracticable to apply the criteria in attached Table 1" under the proviso of Article 2 (2) of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Collection of Fees for Occupancy and Use of Public Waters.

Article 2(1) of the River Act (amended by Ordinance No. 2510, Dec. 30, 195) provides that the occupation and use fees shall be calculated in accordance with the standards set forth in attached Table 1. The above attached Table 1 provides for the detailed criteria for calculation which are subdivided according to the purpose of occupation and use of a river and the actual use of a river, but provides for the method of multiplying mainly by the different calculation rate. Article 2(2) of the same Act provides that "land price shall be calculated by using a standard comparison table on the factors of the formation of land price and land price of the land subject to the most recently announced by the Minister of Construction and Transportation under Article 4(1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Values and Appraisal of Lands and Appraisal of Lands, etc., based on the recent published land price published by the Minister of Construction and Transportation under Article 4(1) of the same Act: Provided, That where it is difficult to apply the standards of the attached Table 1, it shall be determined in consideration of similar land price where it is substantially difficult to apply to the land price of the river in question.

Articles 25(1), 33(1) and (4) of the River Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Central Ephte Co., Ltd. (Attorney Seo-hee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Head of Dong-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City

Daejeon High Court Decision 97Gu3369 delivered on May 8, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the provisions of Articles 25(1) and 33(1) and (4) of the River Act, the management agency may collect river occupancy fees from persons who have obtained permission to occupy and use river appurtenances installed in the river area, and the amount and method of collection thereof shall be determined by the Municipal Ordinance of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Busan, or Do. Article 2(1) of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Occupancy and Use of Public Waters and the Collection of Fees (amended by Ordinance No. 2510, Dec. 30, 1995) provides that occupancy and use fees shall be calculated according to the standards of attached Table 1. In addition, the above attached Table 1 provides that the calculation method shall be based on the purpose of river occupancy and use and actual usage rate different from the land price of the relevant river. Article 4(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Land, etc. Act provides that the standard land price of the relevant river area shall be determined based on the most recent official land price published by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and it is extremely difficult to apply the standard land price of the relevant land.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the river appurtenances of this case, which the plaintiff constructed on the river of this case and donated on the river of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "river appurtenances of this case"), shall be used as a site in fact after obtaining permission to occupy and use the part of the river appurtenances of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "river appurtenances of this case") by constructing sales facilities, business facilities, and education and research facilities of the 8th floor above the ground of this case. The officially assessed land price of this case in 1996 was published as commercial area, but the officially assessed land price of this case was not published as 1,650,000 won per square meter. In light of the purpose of occupation and use of the river appurtenances of this case, actual use, and surrounding circumstances, it is reasonable to calculate the occupation and use fees of the river of this case based on the officially assessed land price of neighboring land of this case rather than on the officially assessed land price of the river of this case of this case, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the land price of this case.

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)