In a case where a local government receives free loans from a State-owned land and enables the victims to reside without permission in the relevant place until they become self-reliant, whether the disposition of imposition of compensation by the first victims, etc. against the person who acquired without permission and the site therefor by transfer or transfer (affirmative)

A local government, upon receiving free loans from the State to a third party, allowed the third party to reside in an unauthorized building without permission until the third party becomes self-reliant. Since the local government, if part of the State-owned land becomes owned by the local government, it did not distribute the State-owned land without compensation or allow the third party to use it permanently for a certain period of time until the third party becomes self-reliant, it is merely a quasi-resident to allow the third party to use the State-owned land without compensation, but it has reserved the removal of the building without permission or transfer of the site to the third party until the third party becomes self-reliant. Since the transfer and acquisition of the building and site without permission can not have opposing power in relation to the State-owned or local government, it cannot be deemed that the first party who acquired the building and site without permission without permission under the proviso of Article 881 of the former State Property Act has occupied the State-owned or local government without permission under the proviso of subparagraph 1 of Article 15 of the former Local Finance Act for a certain period of time before it is not deemed that the State or local government has occupied the State-owned or its land without permission and its legal interest.

Article 51(1)2 of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 4698 of Jan. 5, 1994); Article 87(1)2 of the former Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 5647 of Jan. 21, 199); Article 197(1) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee

Plaintiff 1 and 24 others (Attorney Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu30791 delivered on April 25, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

As to the land of this case, the lower court: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff 1 and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City were subject to removal of the building without permission, which had been built on the river or bank site; and (b) deemed that the Plaintiff 2 and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City were 50,000 without permission for the first time to occupy and use the land without permission, and (c) deemed that the Plaintiff 1 and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City were 4 were 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 were 1 and 4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00,00,00.

Therefore, the above decision of the court below is just and there is no error of law as to the application of the law to the disposition of imposing indemnity of this case under Article 51 (1) of the former State Property Act and Article 87 (1) of the former Local Finance Act, and there is no error of law as to the validity of unauthorized occupation of state property or public property or administrative disposition, and unlike the initial victims or their successors, it is also decided that the unauthorized building or its site constructed on the land of this case or the possession of the plaintiffs who acquired it before the transfer is an occupation without legal title. It is not against the principle of equality under the Constitution, the principle of guaranteeing property rights, the principle of proportionality, or the principle of excessive prohibition, and there is no reason or violation of law in light of the reasoning.

In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that they have superficies on the land of this case as the grounds of appeal, but this is not only a new argument that was not at the court below, but also a new ground for appeal that the state or Seoul Special Metropolitan City should build and reside in an unauthorized building by settling disaster victims, etc. on the land of this case, which was a countermeasure against the state or Seoul Special Metropolitan City. It cannot be deemed that there was an agreement or a promise on the creation of superficies for the purpose of owning a building with respect to the site of the unauthorized building, and thereafter, it cannot be deemed that the statutory superficies under the customary law exists on the ground that the land of this case was transferred to Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)