[1] Method and limitation of legal interpretation

[2] Where a possessor who has leased State-owned or public-owned land which is a general property increases its value by his/her own cost and effort after the commencement of occupation, the method of assessing the relevant land value, which serves as the basis for calculating rent

[3] The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the portion of rent exceeding the rent calculated on the basis of the use conditions at the time of the renewal of the loan agreement, which is the State-owned general property, in case where Gap corporation, obtained permission to occupy and use the State-owned property for the first real estate of the second real estate of the second real estate of the second real estate of the second real estate of the second real estate of the second real estate of the second real estate, and started possession after obtaining approval for the golf course business, and operated the golf course construction after which the construction of the golf course was conducted, but since the first and second real estate of the first real estate became general property, the pertinent management agency newly concluded a loan agreement with Gap corporation and renewed the loan agreement every year, and Gap corporation was calculated and paid the rent as at the time of renewal of the loan agreement

[1] As a matter of principle, since the law is a universal norm with the same binding force against many and unspecified persons, it is necessary to clarify the standard meaning of the law in its interpretation so as to ensure objective validity, and to maintain consistency with all the people as much as possible so as to avoid undermining legal stability. Meanwhile, since positive law is established in consideration of universal and typical matters, it is also required to interpret that the law can be the most reasonable solution for specific matters in applying the law in various cases occurring in society reality. In short, the purpose of statutory interpretation must be to find concrete feasibility within the extent that does not undermine legal stability. Furthermore, in principle, the legislative intent and purpose of the law should be faithfully interpreted in light of the ordinary meaning of the language used in the law. To do so, the systematic and logical interpretation of the law should meet the above request for statutory interpretation by additionally using the systematic and logical method that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose, its history, harmony with the entire legal order, relationship with other statutes.

[2] The Supreme Court has to assess the real value of the land, which is the basis for calculating rent for the State-owned or public property, based on Article 26(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15026, Jun. 15, 1996). The Supreme Court held that the new provision regarding rent for the use of the State-owned property should not be deemed as 00 square meters for the purpose of calculating rent for the use of the State-owned property at the time of 20 years old Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16709, Feb. 14, 200; Presidential Decree No. 20655, Feb. 16, 200). Such assessment should also be deemed as the standard for calculating rent for the use of the State-owned property at the time of 20 years old Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act, based on the changed land value at the time of 20 years old Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act.

[3] The case holding that the portion of the State Property Act, which was calculated on July 27, 2009, should be determined annually on the basis of the property value calculated for each year under the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act, and the amount of rent calculated on the basis of usage conditions as at the time of the initial commencement of occupation and use of the State Property Act, is not at the time of the first occupation and use of the State Property Act, but at the time of the renewal of the loan agreement, and was paid from the corporation Gap. The portion of the State Property Act, which was calculated on the basis of the usage conditions as at the time of the first occupation and use of the State Property Act, should be determined on the basis of the usage conditions as at the time of the first occupation and use of the State Property Act, as at the time of 200. The portion of the State Property Act, which was wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21641, which was executed on July 27, 2009, which was at the time of the first occupation and use of the State property, is still at the beginning of rent.

[1] Article 26 (1) (see current Article 29 (1) 1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20463, Dec. 28, 207); Article 26 (1) (see current Article 29 (2) 1); Article 26 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Property Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21641, Jul. 27, 2009); Article 29 (2) 1 (see current Article 29 (1) 1); Article 29 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Property Act; Article 29 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1926, Dec. 1, 2005); Article 92 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (see current Article 9 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act); Article 92 (1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Property Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Da81035 Decided April 23, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 724) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu3951 Decided August 23, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2894) Supreme Court Decision 2002Da2095 Decided October 28, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1923)

The Arts Council Korea (Law Firm Boba, Attorneys Soh So-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Republic of Korea and one other (Law Firm Vindication, Attorney Jeon-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na105121 decided August 17, 2011

Of the part against the Defendants, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendants regarding unjust enrichment and damages for delay after July 31, 2009 regarding each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 of the lower judgment is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining appeals are dismissed

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As a matter of principle, since the law is a universal norm with the same binding force against many and unspecified persons, it should be interpreted in such a way as to clarify the standard meaning of the law, and to ensure objective validity in its interpretation, and to maintain consistency with all the people as much as possible so as to avoid undermining legal stability. On the other hand, since positive law is established in consideration of universal and typical matters, it is also required to interpret that law can be the most reasonable solution appropriate for specific matters in applying the law in various cases that occur in society reality. In short, the purpose of statutory interpretation is to faithfully interpret the ordinary meaning of the text used in the law to the extent that it does not undermine legal stability. Furthermore, in principle, the legislative intent and purpose of the law should be faithfully interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the text used in the law, as long as possible, by additionally using systematic and logical methods that consider the legislative intent and purpose, the history of its amendment, harmony with the entire legal order, relationship with other statutes, etc., so that it can comply with the above request for statutory interpretation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20038Da3636.

2. A. Article 26(1) and 26(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20463, Dec. 28, 2007; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act prior to the amendment of Presidential Decree No. 2007”; Article 26(1) and 26(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act provides for the application of the “individual land price” of the relevant land under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act; Article 26(1) and (2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21641, Jul. 27, 2009; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act”) provides for the method of calculating rent by multiplying the value of the relevant land by a certain rate; Article 26(1) and (2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act (the “Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act before the amendment of 2009”).

Meanwhile, Article 92 (1) and (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 19226, Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act prior to the wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 19226, the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 19226, Dec. 1, 2005; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act”) provides that “The rent shall be calculated based on the officially announced individual land price (the publicly announced individual land price of neighboring land adjoining the relevant land boundary shall be calculated based on the officially announced individual land price under Article 10 of the same Act, if there is no publicly announced individual land price of the relevant land, the rent shall be calculated on the basis of the officially announced individual land price of the relevant land under Article 10 of the same Act; hereinafter the same shall apply).” The current Enforcement Decree of the Public Property Management Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 1927, Dec. 127, 201, 201) provides. 1.

B. The Supreme Court held that Article 26 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15026 of Jun. 15, 1996), which is similar to “individual land price” under the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act prior to the amendment in 2007, which is the basis for calculating rent for land which is a State or public property, or “the officially announced individual land price” under the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act prior to the amendment in 2009, or Article 26 (2) 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16709 of Feb. 14, 200), which is similar to “the previously announced individual land price” under Article 26 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16709 of Feb. 14, 200), which is also applied to the appraisal of the value of land prior to the amendment in 9050.

However, after the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act in 2009, the basis for calculating the pertinent land price, which serves as the basis for calculating the rent for the land which is a State-owned general property, is changed from the “former publicly announced individual land price” to the “official land price at the time of determining the property value at the time of determining the property value to calculate the rent.” The individual land price at the time of determining the property value to calculate the rent, as it is actually used at the time of the determination of the property value, is determined by assessing the actual use of the relevant land at the time of the determination of the property value. If the legislative purpose of the amendment as mentioned above changes the form and quality of the land, then the profit from use is increased or decreased accordingly. In light of the fact that it is reasonable to reflect such phenomenon as it is, and then, it is reasonable to deem that the above revised provision of the “official land price at the time of determining the property value” includes a simple “individual land price” or any provisions different from the former provisions in which the phrase “formerly” is added.

Therefore, even if the possessor who received a loan of land which is a State-owned general property increases the value by his own cost and effort after the commencement of possession, the value of the relevant property should not be assessed on the basis of the actual status of use at the time of commencement of possession by the possessor from July 31, 2009, which was the enforcement date of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act amended in 2009, rather than on the basis of the actual status of use at the time of commencement of possession. This also applies to cases where a loan contract is newly concluded after obtaining permission for occupancy or use or profit-making of state-owned property as originally,

However, with respect to the calculation of rent of land which is a public general property, the Enforcement Decree of the Public Property Management Act, which is the basis law, has not been amended on July 27, 2009 by the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act on December 30, 2005, and the above legal principles are maintained as they were enacted on December 30, 205, and it is clearly stated that the above legal principles are not applicable, and that the Supreme Court still has no choice but to be based

3. A. The reasoning of the lower judgment and evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: ① The Plaintiff obtained permission to occupy and use each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 of the lower judgment, which is State-owned property, from the Defendant Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and obtained permission to occupy and use the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 of the Defendant Gwangju-do (hereinafter “Defendant Gwangju-si”); on December 9, 1985, the Plaintiff started possession of the instant real estate and its surrounding land after obtaining approval for golf course business; on October 24, 1987, the Plaintiff entered into a golf course with a trade name as ○○○○○○○ club; ② the Plaintiff’s real estate used as the original road and ditch, etc. as public property; ③ the Plaintiff’s land category was changed to the ownership of the instant real estate under the former State Property Act as at the time of using the relevant golf course as at July 23, 196 to the renewal of the relevant loan agreement with the lower court.

B. The following conclusion is derived in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

(1) First, with respect to the loan charges and the loan charges for the real estate No. 1 and the real estate No. 2, which are State property prior to the enforcement of the Enforcement Decree of the amended State Property Act in 2009, corresponding to the increase of the value of the real estate No. 1 and 2 in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles, namely, the loan charges reverted to the Defendants at the time of the commencement of possession of possession of the real estate No. 1 and 2, the amount calculated by deducting the appropriate amount of the loan charges calculated under the premise of the actual use status of the said real estate at the time of the commencement of possession of possession of the real estate No. 1 and 2, which

The court below is just in determining the same purport, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of rent for State or public property.

(2) On the other hand, the rent for the real estate No. 1 of this case since July 31, 2009, when the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act amended in 2009 came into effect, shall be calculated by multiplying the value of the real estate of this case calculated by applying the officially assessed individual land price based on the actual usage conditions at the time of renewal of the loan agreement, which is being used as a golf course, barring any special circumstances in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles. As long as the pertinent government office calculated and received the rent accordingly, the rent for the real estate of this case, which is calculated and paid to the Defendants, is merely the Plaintiff’s performance of obligations under the above loan agreement, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendants obtained unjust profits without any legal grounds.

Nevertheless, on July 31, 2009, the lower court, based on its reasoning, received the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution on the ground that the amount of rent corresponding to the portion that the Plaintiff increased the value of the instant real estate No. 1 by its own cost and effort, i.e., the loan charges reverted to the Defendants, calculated by deducting the amount equivalent to the rent calculated reasonably on the premise of the actual state of use of the instant real estate at the time of commencing possession of the instant real estate No. 1 from the loan charges attributed to the Defendants, is no legal cause, and thus, was unjust. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of rent of State-owned general property after the enforcement date of the amended State Property Act in 200

4. Therefore, among the part against the defendants in the judgment of the court below, the part of unjust enrichment and delay damages on the real estate No. 1 of this case after July 31, 2009 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and all remaining appeals shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)