The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In order for an administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it is insufficient to say that there is an illegal cause, and the defect is serious and objectively obvious as it violates the important part of the law. In determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be considered from a teleological perspective and reasonable consideration of the characteristics of the specific case itself.

(2) Article 72(1) of the State Property Act provides for the collection of compensation equivalent to 120/100 of the usage fees or loan charges of the State property to a person who uses, benefits from, or possesses the State property without permission for use or loan contract (including a person who continues to use, benefits from, or occupies the State property without permission for use or loan contract after the expiration of the period for permission for use or loan contract) under Article 72(1) main sentence and Article 2 Subparag. 9 of the State Property Act. The purport of collecting the normal usage fees or loan charges where the use, benefit from, or possession of the State property is performed without legal title. Thus, since the normal usage fees or loan charges cannot be collected in lieu of the use fees or loan charges, such provision does not apply to a person who is in a legal position to justify the use, benefit from, or possession of the State property, and the imposition of indemnity against such person is null and void per annum.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du12267 Decided March 14, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51536 Decided December 13, 2007, etc.). After compiling the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning. The lower court, upon the consent of the head of Pyeongtaek-gu, who was re-entrusted with the authority to manage and dispose of the real estate of this case, which is general property under the State Property Act, constituted the Plaintiff or the incorporated foundation, and with the consent of the head of Pyeongtaek-gu, which was re-entrusted with the authority to manage