[1] Whether the collection of indemnity against unauthorized possession of State property is bound (affirmative)

[2] The standard time of evaluation of the value of state property for calculating indemnity against a person who occupies state property without permission (=the time of commencement of possession)

[1] The requirements for collecting indemnity for illegal occupancy of State property are clearly stipulated in Article 51(1) of the State Property Act, so whether to collect indemnity is binding act that does not allow the discretion of the disposition agency.

[2] The assessment of the value of the State property for calculating the amount of indemnity imposed on the illegal occupancy of State property and the rent, which serves as the basis thereof, shall be based on the condition at the time of the possessor’s commencement of possession, barring any special circumstances, and even if the possessor changes the form and quality for any purpose other than the original land use after the commencement of possession, it shall not be

[1] Article 51(1) of the State Property Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 51(1) of the State Property Act, Article 26(1), Article 26-2, and Article 56 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15026, Jun. 15, 1996)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Du9735 decided Jan. 14, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 411), Supreme Court Decision 98Du7602 decided Sep. 22, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2598) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15857 decided Apr. 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1592), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu10234 decided Mar. 22, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1340), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2510 decided Sep. 9, 194 (Gong194Ha, 2651), Supreme Court Decision 9Nu39659 decided Aug. 23, 196 (Gong294, 2651)

New Chang Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Chang-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Director General of the National Forest Management Office in the Northern District;

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu13424 delivered on January 29, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

Since the requirements for collecting indemnity against illegal possession of State property are clearly stipulated in Article 51(1) of the State Property Act, whether to collect indemnity is a binding act that does not allow the disposition agency’s discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du7602, Sept. 22, 1998).

With respect to a request for the extension of the loan period of the state forest of this case, which belongs to the private legal act area of this case, the defendant presented the conditions of extension as stated in the judgment of the court below, and rejected the request by the plaintiff violates the principle of good faith or constitutes an abuse of rights as alleged by the plaintiff, the imposition of compensation is inevitable under the above law, unless the loan period automatically extends, unless it takes a civil liability, and the disposition is automatically extended, and it cannot be said that it violates the principle of good faith, the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights, or the principle of prohibition of unfair decision-making under the public law.

The court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition to impose indemnity of this case violates these principles is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to these principles.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

An appraisal of the value of State property for calculating indemnity imposed on illegal occupancy of State property and loan charges, which serve as the basis thereof, shall be based on the status at the time of commencement of occupancy, barring any special circumstance, and even in cases where the possessor changes the form and quality for any purpose other than the original purpose of land after the commencement of occupancy, it shall not be based on changed status (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2510, Sept. 9, 1994). Thus, even in cases where a person who first entered into a lawful loan agreement and possessed State property, fails to enter into a new loan agreement after the expiration of the loan period, and thus, imposes indemnity, such assessment shall not

The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above purport, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 51(1) of the State Property Act and Article 62 of the Enforcement Decree of the Forestry Act, and the Supreme Court decisions pointing out by the defendant are different issues, and it cannot be applied to this case.

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

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)