Whether the usage fee determined at the time of permission to occupy and use the river site is less than the standard table for calculating the usage fee determined by the precedent, and whether the difference may be additionally imposed.

Although permission for occupation and use of a river site is an administrative disposition, it is the same as that of the occupation and use fee, so the usage fee calculated at the time of permission for occupation and use of a river site is lower than that prescribed by the Ordinance of the agency in charge of disposition, and the difference is not additionally paid.

Article 33 of the River Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Gyeonggi-do Kimpo-Gun Attorney Lee Ba-ho, Counsel for defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu406 delivered on December 8, 1976

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney is examined.

Although a river site occupation permit is an administrative disposition, and the same is determined by the court below, it is reasonable that a person who intends to obtain permission to occupy and use the river site has applied for the occupancy permit if the occupancy and use fee is appropriate by attaching the profit and the occupancy and use fee that can be obtained by occupying and using the river site. However, if the occupancy and use fee is excessively high, it is determined for the person who intends to obtain permission to occupy and use the river site to not apply for the occupancy and use permit. In light of the perspective of the person who intends to obtain permission to occupy and use the river site, the occupancy and use fee is determined, and the same is also in the same nature as that of the private law contract between the person who occupies and uses the river site and the plaintiff. In light of the fact that the occupancy and use fee has the same nature as that of the use fee as that of the private law contract between the defendant

The second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 1-1, No. 1-2, and No. 3 (Permit No. 1) adopted by the court below for the determination of legitimate facts, it can be seen that the defendant set the annual occupation and use fee at the rate of ten percent per the average of the area of occupation and use in granting permission to the plaintiff for the occupation and use of the river site of this case. Thus, it is not believed that the plaintiff knew that the annual occupation and use fee of this case was 20 won per square year at the time of the application for the occupation and use permission of this case, and if he knew that it was, the plaintiff did not apply for the occupation

The judgment of the court below is based on the facts established by the adopted evidence, and in the case of this case where the plaintiff paid the occupation and use fee prescribed by the letter of occupation and use, and the period of occupation and use has expired, even if the above occupation and use fee was determined lower than the charges in accordance with the standard for calculating the charges under the theory of occupation and use, the difference can not be additionally imposed. As seen above, in view of the nature of occupation and use of the river site as seen above, as long as the period of occupation and use is completed by both parties during the period of occupation and use as agreed upon by the parties, it cannot be said that the additional imposition of the charges due to mistake is justifiable and unlawful in that it is reasonable to permit the calculation of the charges due to mistake, as long as the contract has been completely implemented. From the contrary point of view, the argument based on the opposite opinion is without merit.

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

Justices Hah- Port (Presiding Justice)