(영문) 대법원 2013.4.26.선고 2013다4975 판결

Of the part against the Defendants, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendants on unjust enrichment and damages for delay after July 31, 2009 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

All remaining appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Under Article 26(1) and (2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act, which provides that rent shall be calculated by multiplying the value of the relevant land by a certain rate. The criteria for calculating the value of the relevant land, which serves as the basis for calculating rent, shall be as follows: (a) prior to the wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21641, Jul. 7, 2009, Article 26(1) and (2)1 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act, the individual land price of the relevant land under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal Act or the recent publicly announced individual land price should be applied; (b) Article 29(1) and (2)1 of the current Enforcement Decree, which was wholly revised and enforced from July 31, 2009, provides that the existing public land price as at the time of determination of the property value for calculating rent shall be applied to an occupant of the relevant land at the time of the commencement of the existing public land transaction agreement, which is not the actual or similar property value at the time of the previously announced individual land price.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① the Plaintiff, from around August 23, 1993 to around December 31, 2007, entered in the annexed list of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case”) and its surrounding land, was operating a golf course with the trade name of “A”, ② the land category of this case, which was changed to a sports site or an amusement park due to the creation of a golf course; ③ the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement under the State Property Act between the Defendant-si to which the Republic of Korea was delegated by the Defendant Republic of Korea, and then renewed it on June 17, 2003 and December 31, 207; ④ the Defendant, as above, agreed on the lease agreement renewal based on the value of each land calculated each year according to the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s share of the land at the time of the renewal of the lease agreement shall be calculated based on the status of each land.

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the loan charges corresponding to the portion of the loan charges prior to the enforcement of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act amended in 2009, which the Plaintiff increased the value of the land of this case with its own expenses and effort, i.e., loan charges reverted to the Defendants, which are the amount calculated by deducting the appropriate amount of loan charges calculated under the premise of the actual status of use of the land of this case at the time of commencing possession of the land of this case, shall be deemed as unjust enrichment and thus, there is no legal cause. However, the loan charges after July 31, 2009, which was enforced of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act in 2009, should be calculated by multiplying the amount calculated by applying the officially assessed individual land price based on the actual conditions of use at the time of renewal of the loan contract, barring any special circumstance under the aforementioned legal principles. Thus, as long as the pertinent rental charges have been calculated and paid to the Defendants, such loan charges shall not be deemed as having been accrued to the Defendants without any legal benefit.

Nevertheless, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on its own cost and effort, received the Plaintiff’s claim for return on the ground that all of the remainder, which remains after deducting the appropriate amount of loan charges calculated under the premise of the actual status of use of the pertinent real estate, from the loan charges reverted to the Defendants, at the time of commencing possession of each of the instant real estate from the loan charges reverted to the Defendants, did not have legal grounds, and thus, received the Plaintiff’s claim for return on the loan charges before the enforcement of the Enforcement Decree of the amended State Property Act in 2009. However, the lower court’s judgment on the loan charges prior to the enforcement of the Enforcement Decree of the amended State Property Act in 209 was justifiable

3. Therefore, among the part against the Defendants in the judgment of the court below, the part against each of the lands of this case as to July 2009.

31. The part of the subsequent unjust enrichment and damages for delay shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeals shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.