2010Nu44759 Charges, etc. for the use of harbor facilities

Stock Company

1. The Commissioner of the Incheon Regional Maritime Port Office;

2. The Incheon Harbor Corporation;

Incheon District Court Decision 2010Guhap2009 Decided November 25, 2010

June 1, 2011

July 6, 2011

1. All appeals filed by the Defendants are dismissed. 2. Costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of user fees for each harbor facility stated in the attached Form (hereinafter referred to as "user fees for the harbor facility of this case") against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

All of the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable, and therefore, the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

The defendants asserted in the appellate court that the acts of the public official or employee in charge due to the mistake in administrative legal relations are not included in the expression of public opinion. The defendants' public official or employee in charge of the defendants did not impose the fees for the use of the harbor facilities of this case due to erroneous interpretation of the guidelines of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

However, there is no reason to believe that the principle of trust protection cannot be applied to the other party solely on the ground that a public official or employee in charge has expressed his opinion to the other party due to a mistake in administrative legal relations (the Supreme Court Decisions 908947 delivered on May 28, 1991; 90-9360 delivered on October 22, 199, which are the Supreme Court precedents cited by the defendant as the grounds for the above argument, are related to the requirements for establishing non-taxation practices under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and it is not appropriate to apply the case to other cases). This part of the defendants' assertion is without merit.

The defendants also asserted that the plaintiff did not take any measure by relianceing on the defendants' public opinion expression, and that the ship company is obligated to pay the user fee and the plaintiff is merely the agent of the ship company and there is no interest in infringement.

However, in light of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings submitted by the parties, it seems that the Plaintiff did not take measures to obtain compensation for the user fee of the instant harbor facilities in trust of the Defendants’ public opinion. Furthermore, insofar as the Defendants imposed the user fee of the instant harbor facilities (including the evidence Nos. 3 and No. 5 (including each number) on the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have suffered no benefit from the instant disposition, and there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff did not have any substantial economic damage, such as that the Plaintiff was compensated for the amount of the instant disposition. Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal by the defendants is dismissed for lack of reason.

Constitution of the presiding judge, senior judge

Judges Noh Jeong-il

Judges Jeong Jae-ok

A person shall be appointed.