The legal nature of the lending of national miscellaneous property and the payment notice;

Under Article 31(3) of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 4698 of Jan. 5, 1994), and Article 33(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13869 of Mar. 6, 1993), lending of state-owned miscellaneous property by an agency entrusted with the authority to manage and dispose of state-owned miscellaneous property pursuant to Article 31(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13869 of Mar. 6, 1993) shall not be deemed an administrative disposition unilaterally conducted by an administrative agency as the subject of private economy, regardless of the other party’s intent as the subject of

Article 31(3) of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 4698 of Jan. 5, 1994); Article 33(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13869 of Mar. 6, 1993); Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu239 delivered on August 23, 1983, 91Nu11612 delivered on December 7, 1993, 93Nu13735 delivered on December 21, 1993

Samyang General Co., Ltd., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

vice-markets

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu7138 delivered on March 24, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

All costs of a lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal ex officio prior to judgment.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case, seeking revocation of the disposition imposing usage fees on the plaintiff on September 26, 1992, the court below rejected the lawsuit of this case on the ground that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case without lawful pre-trial procedure, on the premise that the payment notice of usage fees on the land of this case is an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, on the premise that the defendant's payment notice of usage fees is an administrative disposition on the land of this case, but the land of this case was abolished on April 18, 198, and its category was changed to land site and its management right was delegated to the defendant.

However, the term "administrative disposition" means an exercise or refusal of public authority as a law enforcement with regard to specific facts conducted by an administrative agency, and other corresponding administrative actions. Thus, the act of lending state miscellaneous property by an agency entrusted with the authority to dispose of state miscellaneous property under Article 31 (3) of the State Property Act (amended by Act No. 4698 of Jan. 5, 1994) and Article 33 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13869 of Mar. 6, 1993) shall not be deemed an administrative disposition unilaterally conducted by an administrative agency regardless of the other party's intent as the public authority, since a contract under the private law conducted by the State at an equal location with the other party as the subject of private economy is concluded, and a notice of payment of fees for state miscellaneous property shall also be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal under the private law and shall not be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1612, Dec. 7, 1993>

see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to administrative dispositions that are subject to appeal litigation, on the premise that a notice of payment of usage fees for the land of this case is an administrative disposition, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, on the premise that the notice of payment of usage fees for the land of this case is an administrative disposition, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is omitted and the judgment of the court below is deemed sufficient for party

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)