A. The purport of Article 87(1) of the Local Finance Act concerning the collection of indemnity, and whether the above provision applies to a person in a legal position to justify the possession or use of public property (negative)

(b) The case holding that the above provisions of paragraph (a) do not apply to a person who occupies land without completing the registration of ownership transfer even though he purchased the land from the Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities;

A. Article 87(1) of the Local Finance Act provides that the collection of indemnity equivalent to 120/100 of loan charges or usage fees shall be made to a person who occupies, uses, or benefits from a public property without obtaining permission for a loan, use, or profit-making under any Act. The purport of Article 87(1) of the Local Finance Act is to collect indemnity equivalent to 120/100 of the amount in lieu of normal loan charges or usage fees, in a case where the possession, use, or profit-making of the public property is carried out without any legal title. Thus, there is no application to a person in a legal position to justify

(b) The case holding that the above provisions of paragraph (a) do not apply to a person who occupies land without completing the registration of ownership transfer even though he purchased the land from the Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities.

Article 87 (1) of the Local Finance Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5211 delivered on March 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 2910), 87Meu809, 811 delivered on September 8, 1987 (Gong1987, 1562) (Gong192, 1311) 92Nu14 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong192, 2910)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200

Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Busan Metropolitan City Maritime Affairs

Busan High Court Decision 91Gu3253 delivered on October 28, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 87(1) of the Local Finance Act provides that the collection of indemnity equivalent to 120/100 of loan charges or usage fees shall be made to a person who occupies, uses, or benefits from a public property without obtaining permission for the loan, use, or profit-making under Acts is the purport of collecting indemnity equivalent to 120/100 of the amount in lieu of normal loan charges, in a case where the possession, use, or profit-making of the public property is performed without any legal title. Thus, there is no application to a person who is in a legal position to justify his/her possession, use, or profit-making.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the part of the land portion of this case 1, 2, and 3 Bluet which the plaintiff possessed as the container storage without permission from the defendant is a part of the land which was originally sold to the non-party 1, non-party 2, and non-party 1, non-party 2, and non-party 1 and the non-party 2 before the Busan Metropolitan City, which performed reclamation work after obtaining a reclamation license on the part of the above land. The plaintiff purchased it again from the above non-party or the subsequent purchaser and possessed it as a legitimate purchaser. However, as the plan road of 8 meters in width was extended to 30 meters in width according to the direction of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the Busan Metropolitan City and the non-party 1, 2, and 3 luet land portion which was originally assigned by the defendant to the defendant, and the defendant imposed the compensation against the plaintiff. Thus, the above provision of Article 87 (1) of the Local Finance Act is not applicable to the plaintiff.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is correct and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the imposition of indemnity due to violation of the rules of evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.