[1] The nature of imposing usage fees on the administration office of State property

[2] In cases where legal superficies is established according to custom as to state property, the method of claiming land rent

[1] The imposition of usage fees on a person who permits the administration agency of State property to use or benefit from administrative property and uses or benefit from it cannot be a claim for the performance of private law, which is conducted as a private economic entity, and this is an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, which is conducted by the administration agency in a superior position with public power.

[2] In a case where a statutory superficies is established under customary law on state property, Article 366 of the Civil Code, which provides that the court shall determine the land rent at the request of the parties concerned, shall apply mutatis mutandis. In this case, the landowner may immediately claim payment on the premise that the court determines a reasonable rent.

[1] Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [General Administrative Disposition] Article 25 of the State Property Act / [2] Article 25 of the State Property Act, Article 366 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu11030 decided Feb. 13, 1996 (1) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 83Nu292 decided Sep. 27, 1983 (Gong1983, 1617) Supreme Court Decision 83Nu291 decided Dec. 11, 1984 (Gong1985, 170) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1612 decided Dec. 7, 1993 (Gong194, 368) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 64Da528 decided Sep. 30, 1964

Plaintiff (Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the Seoul Regional Railroad Office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu14072 delivered on June 14, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

The administrative agency of state property grants permission for use and profit-making of the administrative property to the person who uses or benefits from the administrative property shall not be deemed a claim for the performance under private law conducted as a private economic entity, and this shall be an administrative disposition that is the subject of appeal litigation, which is conducted by the administrative agency in the superior position with public power. In the same purport, the decision of the court below is proper in the premise that the administrative disposition of this case is an administrative disposition, and there is no violation of law in misunderstanding legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. The decision of 94Nu5281 delivered on May 12, 1995, which is cited as the argument, is not appropriate to be invoked in this case as it concerns lending of state property and notice of payment for its use

On the second ground for appeal

When the administration agency of state property permits use or profit-making of administrative property, it is reasonable to impose and collect fees according to the rates and methods prescribed by the Presidential Decree pursuant to Article 25 of the State Property Act. However, Article 366 of the Civil Act, which provides that the court shall determine the rent upon the party's request, shall apply mutatis mutandis where statutory superficies has been established in respect of state property, and Article 366 of the Civil Act which provides that the land shall be determined by the court at the party's request. In this case, the land owner may immediately claim payment on the premise that the court decides reasonable rent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 64Da528, Sept. 30, 1964), and the judgment below to the same purport is correct, and there is no violation of the law of misunderstanding such as theory of lawsuit.

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.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)