Whether a disposition imposing indemnity against an illegal occupant of State property under Article 51 of the State Properties Act is an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation.

Article 51 (1) of the State Property Act provides that an illegal occupant of State property shall collect indemnity in addition to the loan charges or usage fees to be paid when it is permitted to lend, use, or profit from such property to an illegal occupant in addition to the loan charges or usage fees to be paid by the State within the punitive sense, and Article 51 (2) of the State Property Act provides that the State property management authority shall collect indemnity in accordance with the National Tax Collection Act at the time of default on the payment of indemnity. In light of the above, a disposition to impose indemnity against an illegal occupant cannot be deemed a private legal act conducted as a private economic entity, and this is deemed an administrative disposition conducted in the superior position of the management authority and subject

Article 51 of the State Property Act, Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu726, 87Gu69 (Consolidated) Decided October 22, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case on the ground that, in this case where the plaintiff occupied the land which is the state property without permission, and the defendant did the disposition of imposition of compensation for use of state property on the basis of Article 51 of the State Property Act, the disposition of imposition of the disposition of imposition of the compensation for use of state property is an administrative disposition, as long as the use of and profit-making from the state property or the loan of miscellaneous property is merely a contract under the private law and it cannot be seen as an administrative disposition by the public authority, it cannot be seen as an administrative disposition by the public authority, even if the person who received the use of and profit-making from the miscellaneous property or the person who received the loan of miscellaneous property fails to pay the rent or fee, and thus, the imposition of rent or fee for the miscellaneous property is merely a private economic act that does not involve a public authority, and thus, it does not constitute an administrative disposition. Thus, the above disposition of imposition of compensation by the defendant cannot be deemed an administrative disposition.

Article 51 (1) of the State Property Act provides that the State shall collect compensation equivalent to 120/100 of the loan fee or use fee of the State property from a person who occupies, uses, or profits from the State property without permission under the above Act or other Acts, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. This is not only the loan fee or use fee to be paid to a person who occupies the State property without permission, but also the amount equivalent to 20/10 of the loan or use fee to be paid to him. Article 51 (2) of the State Property Act provides that when the person who has obtained permission to use, use, or profit from the State property fails to pay the indemnity, the Office of Administration shall delegate the same provision to the head of the competent tax office or the head of the local government to collect it by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of the National Tax Collection Act of the National Tax Collection Act. In light of the fact that Article 25 (3) of the State Property Act provides that the State Property Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the person who has a superior position in the administration agency before the State property is subject to administrative litigation.

Nevertheless, the court below, which rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case on the ground that the disposition of imposing indemnity of this case does not constitute an administrative disposition, has an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the administrative disposition or Article 51 of the State Property Act, and therefore, the argument

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)