logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1982. 6. 22. 선고 81누389 판결
[보상금지급결정처분취소][집30(2)특,137;공1982.9.1.(687) 704]
Main Issues

Detection of concealed State property, determination of compensation for reporters, legal nature of payment (=judicial act)

Summary of Judgment

The determination and payment of compensation to the person who discovered or reported the concealed state property is just the act as the subject of the private property right, the exercise of the public authority, or the exercise of the public authority, and the dispute on this is not the subject of civil litigation, but the subject of civil litigation.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 53 of the State Property Act, Article 58(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act (Presidential Decree No. 8593, Jun. 13, 197); Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellee

Minister of Finance and Economy

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu462 delivered on November 3, 1981

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 53 of the State Property Act, and Article 58 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 8598, Jun. 13, 197) and Article 58 (1) of the same Act, when the reversion of the State becomes final and conclusive by discovering concealed State property and reporting it to the government, a certain amount of compensation shall be paid to the reporting person (Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act has been amended on March 14, 1981, but only the standard of compensation has been changed). Accordingly, the government's determination of compensation for reporting concealed property to the reporting person is a mere act as the subject of property right under private law and is not a exercise of public authority or a combination with the exercise of public authority. Accordingly, disputes related thereto cannot

Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just and cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)

arrow