Whether the occupation and use of the Korean Electric Power Corporation aims at public interest or not.

In view of the fact that the Korea Electric Power Company has made a dividend of the private shares under the provisions on the shares of paragraph (2) of the same Article and is subject to the provisions of the Commercial Act in Article 5 of the same Act, unless otherwise provided in this Act, it shall be deemed that the company has the nature of public interest in operating the electric business, while it is a company that does not exclude the purpose of profit-making. Therefore, it shall not be deemed that the occupancy and use of a road by the said company is for the public interest of Article 44

Articles 41 and 44 of the Road Act

Korea Electric Power Corporation

South Jeju Gun

Gwangju High Court of the first instance (73Gu68)

Supreme Court Decision 74Nu127 delivered on December 24, 1974

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant confirmed that the disposition of imposition of KRW 431,640 on August 20, 1973 against the Plaintiff for road occupation and use fees in the year 1973 is null and void.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The fact that the defendant granted permission to occupy and use the road of August 20, 1973 to construct and use the main owner in the national highways and Gun roads within the area and imposed the amount of KRW 431,640 on the road occupation and use fees of August 20, 1973 does not conflict between the parties

Since the plaintiff's attorney's above occupation and use of a road is for public use or public interest, it is illegal to impose the fee for the occupation and use of the road as above, although it is not possible to collect the fee for the occupation and use of the road under Article 44 of the Road Act, and it is argued that the defect has reached the claim of this case in order to confirm it with significant and obvious nullity and invalid. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret the meaning of the case where the occupation and use of the road under Article 44 of the Road Act is for public use or public interest purpose as referring to the case for non-profit business for public use or public interest purpose. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret the case as referring to the case for each non-profit business for public use or public interest purpose, and it is applied to the provisions of the Commercial Act to the matters of Article 5 of the Korean Electric Power Company Act without special provisions of the same Act, but at the same time, the electricity business operated by the plaintiff company cannot be deemed to be non-profit business since it does not exclude the purpose of profit. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

Judges Kim Jae-ju (Presiding Judge) Yang Young-tae Kim