(영문) 대법원 2018.4.12.선고 2017다288825 판결

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this part shall be revoked, and this part of the lawsuit shall be dismissed.

The remaining appeals are dismissed.

All costs of appeal against dismissal of a lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and all costs of appeal against dismissal of a lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Part demanding the payment of usage fees

A. An act of imposing usage fees on a person who has obtained permission to use or benefit from any administrative property or preserved property after he/she has been granted permission to do so is an administrative disposition conducted in a superior position of the public authority by the management agency. In cases where a person who has obtained permission to use or benefit from such property despite a lawful disposition of imposition of usage fees fails to do so, the management agency may collect usage fees, additional dues, etc. in accordance with Article 73(2) of the State Property Act pursuant to Article 73(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, and thus, it is not allowed to seek implementation by civil means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, on July 22, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) determined the annual period from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2017 as KRW 193,880,00 for the instant real estate, which is a welfare facility (administrative property) in the territory of the Air Force 11 Air Force; and (b) revoked the permission to use the instant real estate on the ground that the Defendant was delinquent on November 1, 2016; (c) the Plaintiff sought payment of unpaid usage fees and late payment fees; (d) however, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff may be obliged to collect usage fees and late payment charges from the head of the competent tax office, etc. pursuant to Article 73(2) of the State Property Act where the Defendant did not pay usage fees; and (e) the Plaintiff did not comply with the procedures for special remedy; and (e) did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the administrative property imposition of this part of the lawsuit.

2. Part on the request for extradition of real estate

After comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision. However, considering the fact that some of the provisions of the Operating Convention on the Real Estate of this case restrict the defendant's rights, the real estate of this case is a state property, and the above Convention includes the contents that are beneficial to the defendant, and requires certain procedures when it violates the Convention, part of the above Convention constitutes "a standardized contract which has lost fairness in violation of the principle of trust and good faith" which becomes null and void under Article 6 (1) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act as a provision unfairly unfavorable to the defendant. In addition, it is difficult to see that some of the above Convention is null and void, and it did not exempt the defendant from the duty to deliver the real estate of this case that the defendant bears to the plaintiff even if it is null and void. In light of the records, the judgment

3. Conclusion. The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, but this part is sufficient for this court to directly render a judgment, so this part of the lawsuit is revoked and this part of the lawsuit is dismissed, and the remaining appeal by the defendant is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.