[1] Whether a disposition imposing indemnity is appropriate against a person who takes over the possession of a railroad site which is a State-owned administrative property from a legitimate loan user (affirmative)

[2] Whether a private person’s use of land, which is a state-owned property, is included in “a case where a private person uses the station property as a tea, resting place, etc.” under Article 30(1)4 of the former Railroad Pollutioning Center’s State Property Management Regulations (negative)

[1] Since a person who takes over the possession of a railroad site which is a state-owned administrative property from a legitimate loan user is not a person who has obtained permission for the use of the land, but a so-called unauthorized user who has acquired such possession from a person who has the right to use it without the approval of the management agency, such possession and use shall be subject to the indemnity under Article 51 (1) of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 4698 of Jan. 5

[2] In the case where a building, which is a state property, is used as a multi-faceted or resting place under Article 30 (1) 4 (b) of the former Railroad Pollution Control Regulations (amended by the Directive No. 7247 of July 31, 1996), the term "cases where a building, which is a state property, is used for the same purpose as the site, together with the building site. It does not include cases where a private person has constructed a building on the ground after obtaining permission for use of the land, which is a state property, and uses it for such purpose.

[1] Articles 24 and 51(1) of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 4698 of Jan. 5, 1994); Article 24(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15026 of Jun. 15, 1996); Article 24(1)4(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act / [2] Articles 24 and 51(1) of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 4698 of Jan. 5, 1994); Article 24(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15026 of Jun. 15, 1996); Article 30(1)4(c) of the former Regulations on the Management of State Property of the Railroad (amended by Presidential Decree No. 7247 of Jul. 31, 1996)

[Defendant-Appellant]

Head of the Seoul Regional Railroad Office

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu31467 delivered on April 7, 1998

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s 10th of Sep. 5, 1989 as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s 1st of the instant 3rd of the building constructed on the instant railroad site, which is a State-owned administrative property, through Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 on Aug. 23, 1965; and (b) Nonparty 1 received the ownership transfer from Nonparty 2, who is the permission authority for use and profit-making of the instant land at the time, without the Defendant’s consent; (c) the Plaintiff without permission and paid indemnity to the Defendant on Sep. 1, 1970; (d) the Plaintiff donated the instant building to the Plaintiff, who is the Plaintiff on Sep. 5, 1989; and (e) the Plaintiff also purchased the instant 1st of the instant 4th of the building without permission until December 31, 195; (e) the Plaintiff’s 6th of the instant 10th of the instant 10th of the instant 197th of the State Property Act (amended by Presidential Decree).

2. In light of the relevant statutes and the records, the court below is just in holding that the non-party 1 or the plaintiff is not a person permitted to use the land of this case but a so-called unauthorized user who merely acquired such possession from the person entitled to use the land of this case without the approval of the management agency and thus is subject to the compensation under Article 51 (1) of the State Property Act with respect to the possession and use before March 1, 1994. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the objects of the imposition of compensation, violation of the rules of evidence, or incomplete hearing, etc.

3. "Where a building, which is a State property, is used as a multipurpose or resting place" in Article 30 (1) 4 (b) of the Management Regulations means the case where the building, which is a State property, is used for the same purpose together with the site, and it shall not include the case where a private person has constructed a building on the ground after obtaining permission for the use of the land, which is a State property, and is used for the same purpose.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the above provision on the ground that the building of this case owned by the plaintiff on the land of this case, which is owned by state property, is used as the first floor restaurant (sluria), second floor multi-story, and third floor restaurant (slurc). Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the above provision on the ground that the plaintiff's land of this case constitutes "where the plaintiff uses the station property as a tea or resting place" under Article 30 (1) 4 (b) of the Management Regulations.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)