[1] The time of assessing the amount of compensation to be imposed on the occupation and use of state property and the amount of usage fees to be the basis thereof

[2] In a case where a school juristic person Gap, at the time of the commencement of possession, used the land as a parking lot and used it as a parking lot after the commencement of possession, the case holding that the price of the above land should be assessed based on the condition at the time of commencement of possession (=the ditch)

[1] The appraisal of State property for calculating indemnity and usage fees to be imposed on the occupation and use of State property shall be based on the status at the time the possessor commences the occupation, barring special circumstances. Even in cases where the possessor changes the form and quality of state property for any purpose other than the original land use after the commencement of occupation, it shall not be based on changed conditions.

[2] In a case where school juristic person Gap operating a hospital installed between the hospital and the parking lot site for the smooth use of the hospital parking lot site, after the commencement of possession of the land, which was located between the hospital and the parking lot site, was recovered, and the form and quality of the land was used for the original purpose different from the original purpose, and then was imposed a disposition of imposition of usage fees, the case holding that the land price of the above land should be assessed on the basis of the "ditch" which is the condition at the time when the occupation of the land was commenced, and the land price of the land at all different from the original

[1] Article 51 of the State Property Act, Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act / [2] Article 23 (3) of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, Article 32 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, Article 9 (1) and (2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act, and

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2510 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2651)

Schools of Annual Generation of School (Law Firm Marina, Attorneys Kim Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

port of destination

March 31, 2011

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 24,938,00,00 against the Plaintiff on May 24, 2010 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. While the Plaintiff was operating a medical center in the Young-si 405 Sinsi-dong 405 Sinsi-dong, the Plaintiff purchased each land of the same 328-14, 15, and 16 that was used as a site for the parking lot of the above hospital (hereinafter “instant parking lot site”), and obtained permission for changing the form and quality of the land (referred to as “the instant parking lot site”) and used as the site for the said hospital.

B. Meanwhile, from August 2004 to January 2005, 2005, a 370 square meters out of the same 328-2 square meters as a State-owned land is a ditch located between the instant hospital and the instant parking lot site. The Plaintiff used the 370 square meters out of the 370 square meters of the instant parking lot for the smooth use of the said 370 square meters, and the remaining 337 square meters of the land (hereinafter “instant land”) as a parking lot after obtaining approval for use and extension of the 37 square meters of the land for agricultural infrastructure from the Defendant to the present time.

C. On May 24, 2010, the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s royalty for the portion of the instant land in 2010, based on the officially announced land price in 2009, 328-15 large 2,046 square meters, which is the instant parking lot site, and imposed KRW 24,938,000,00 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On July 2010, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant, but received a reply from the Defendant that the instant disposition was lawful on the 29th of the same month.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 24 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The appraisal of the value of the land of this case for the calculation of usage fees of the land of this case should be based on the condition at which the plaintiff commenced possession of the land of this case, and the defendant asserted that the disposition of this case was unlawful since the disposition of this case was made based on the condition (parking lot site) in which the value of the plaintiff's investment increased after approval for use.

B. Determination

The land manager may collect all or part of the expenses incurred in maintaining or repairing agricultural infrastructure from those who use the agricultural infrastructure or water for purposes other than its original purpose (Article 23(3) of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act); and the collection of the above expenses shall be based on the officially announced value of the relevant land; where the land is a site for agricultural infrastructure for which the officially announced value is not determined, the appraised value under Article 9(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act or the appraised value by an appraisal business operator pursuant to Article 21 of the same Act; where the land falls under subparagraph (a) of the same Article and the appraisal expenses are excessive in light of the annual collection amount of expenses, it shall be appraised as the land value of neighboring land having similar value as the officially announced value of the State property, and where the appraisal expenses are used for purposes other than the originally announced value of the land, the appraisal of the land shall be based on the officially announced value of the land that is deemed to have been altered, and the appraisal of the land shall not be based on the officially announced value of the land at the time of the original land.

Based on the purport and legal principles of this Act, the Defendant calculated the price of the instant land, as seen earlier, based on the price calculation of the officially assessed individual land price of 328-15 large 2,046 square meters, YY-dong, Y-dong, the neighboring site. However, the instant land is the original ditch, and the Plaintiff, as at the time of the commencement of possession, uses it as the parking lot of the instant hospital by changing its form and quality as a result of the Plaintiff’s reconstruction of the instant land after the commencement of possession. Thus, the price of the instant land should be assessed based on the ditch at the time of the Plaintiff’s commencement of possession, namely, on the basis of the condition at the time of the Plaintiff’s commencement of possession. Thus, the instant disposition that imposed the royalty on the basis of the price of the instant land at the time of the commencement of possession or use of the instant land at all different sites is unlawful (On the other hand, the Defendant’s contract was concluded under the private law between the original and the Defendant, and thus the Defendant’s use approval was based on a public authority).

In addition, there is no proof on the amount of usage fees calculated based on ditches, so the instant disposition cannot be entirely revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judge Lee Han-hoon (Presiding Judge)