Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
The Port Corporation Act as a special act, and the monthly deadline for claiming advanced charges
Supreme Court, Dec. 16, 2021, 2018Da204114 (judgment)
Case name: 사용료
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Did Article 13(3) of the former Port Corporation Act Enforcement Decree give a port corporation discretion over whether to pay charges advanced for port facility users, and under Article 11(2) of the Enforcement Rule, can the claim for a given month no longer be made once the 20th of the following month has passed?
Holding
No discretion, and no cut-off. The Court agreed that Article 13(3) of the former Port Corporation Act Enforcement Decree only authorised the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries' ordinance to set out the content and procedure of the claim for advanced charges. Because the former Port Act and the Port Corporation Act stand as general and special laws on the development, management and operation of port facilities, the claim under Article 30(5) of the former Port Act applied to port corporations of course, and the decree provision merely restated that in a cautionary and confirmatory way. Article 11(2) of the Enforcement Rule serves the administrative convenience of monthly settlement, absent special circumstances, and does not bar the claim for a month after the 20th.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
위 조항은 해양수산부령에 대납경비청구권의 내용과 절차를 구체화하도록 수권하는 규정일 뿐, 항만공사에 대납경비 지급 여부에 관한 재량을 부여하는 규정이 아니라고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례.
Unofficial English translation
A case in which the court below's determination was affirmed, that the aforesaid provision merely authorizes that the contents and procedure of the claim for expenses paid on another's behalf be specified by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and is not a provision granting discretion to a port authority as to whether to pay expenses paid on another's behalf.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
위와 같은 입법 목적, 관련 규정의 내용과 체제 등을 종합하면, 구 항만법과 항만공사법은 항만시설의 개발과 관리·운영에 관하여 일반법과 특별법의 관계에 있다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In light of such legislative purpose, the contents and system of the relevant provisions, etc. as stated above in combination, it must be regarded that the former Port Act and the Port Authority Act stand in the relationship of general law and special law with respect to the development and management and operation of port facilities.
Factors
- 해양수산부령에 대납경비청구권의 내용과 절차를 구체화하도록 수권하는 규정일 뿐, 항만공사에 대납경비 지급 여부에 관한 재량을 부여하는 규정이 아니라고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
- 항만공사법에는 규정되어 있지 않은 새로운 제도를 시행령 단계에서 비로소 도입하는 창설적 규정이 아니라
- 항만공사의 경우에도 구 항만법 제30조 제5항에 따른 항만시설 사용료 대납경비청구권 제도가 당연히 적용된다는 것을 주의적·확인적으로 규정한 것이라고 보는 것이 타당하다
- 해상화물운송사업자와 항만공사 상호 간의 업무편의를 위해 대납경비를 특별한 사정이 없는 한 1개월마다 정산하도록 하려는 취지이다
- 이것이 다음 달 20일이 지나면 해당 월의 대납경비청구권을 더 이상 행사하지 못하도록 제한하려는 것은 아니다
Unofficial English translation
• A case in which the court below's determination was affirmed, that the provision merely authorizes that the contents and procedure of the claim for expenses paid on another's behalf be specified by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and is not a provision granting discretion to a port authority as to whether to pay expenses paid on another's behalf
• It is not a constitutive provision introducing a new system not stipulated in the Port Authority Act only at the stage of the Enforcement Decree
• It is reasonable to regard it as a provision declaratorily and confirmatorily stipulating that, even in the case of a port authority, the system of claim for expenses paid on another's behalf for port facility use fees under Article 30(5) of the former Port Act naturally applies
• Its purport is to have the expenses paid on another's behalf settled every one month, unless there are special circumstances, for the convenience of business between maritime cargo transportation business operators and the port authority
• This does not intend to restrict the exercise of the claim for expenses paid on another's behalf for the relevant month after the 20th day of the following month has passed
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
구 항만법과 항만공사법은 항만시설의 개발과 관리·운영에 관하여 일반법과 특별법의 관계에 있다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The former Port Act and the Port Authority Act must be regarded as standing in the relationship of general law and special law with respect to the development and management and operation of port facilities.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a claimant seeks advanced charges for a long-past period, can the claim still be refused on grounds such as good faith or abuse of rights, even though Article 11(2) sets no time bar?
Any amendment to Article 13(3) of the Port Corporation Act Enforcement Decree after the amendment of 20 June 2017 (Presidential Decree No. 28139), or to Article 11(2) of the Enforcement Rule, would call for this entry to be read again. A later decision refusing a delayed claim on good-faith or abuse-of-rights grounds would also require a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-26
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 5 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The original text lists purpose content and structure comprehensively and also states clear characterizations so it can read as overall balancing or as stating requirements.
항만공사법이 특별히 정하지 않은 사항에 관해서는 일반법인 구 항만법이 적용되어야 한다.Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The original text declares a general and special law relation which can look like a new standard yet it also presents itself as confirmatory so precedent status can read differently.
구 항만법과 항만공사법은 항만시설의 개발과 관리·운영에 관하여 일반법과 특별법의 관계에 있다고 보아야 한다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If a claimant seeks advanced charges for a long-past period, can the claim still be refused on grounds such as good faith or abuse of rights, even though Article 11(2) sets no time bar?” vs Independent “What circumstances would justify departing from the ordinary monthly settlement of these expenses?”
The primary reading imagines a stale claim barred by good faith while the independent reading asks what counts as special circumstances to leave monthly settlement.
위 조항은 해양수산부령에 대납경비청구권의 내용과 절차를 구체화하도록 수권하는 규정일 뿐, 항만공사에 대납경비 지급 여부에 관한 재량을 부여하는 규정이 아니라고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 6 December 2017 (2017Na46440), treated the plaintiff's bulk payment of the users' port facility charges on their behalf as a relationship of entrustment or management of another's affairs with the defendant, and held that Article 13(3) of the former Port Corporation Act Enforcement Decree only authorised the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries' ordinance to set out the content and procedure of the claim, conferring no discretion on the port corporation to refuse payment. It took Article 30(1) of the Port Corporation Act as the delegation basis, rejected the defendant's argument that the decree provision was void for breach of the legal reservation principle, and held that Article 11(2) of the Enforcement Rule could not bar the exercise of the claim.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court accepted the core holdings: Article 13(3) confers no discretion, the legal reservation challenge fails, and Article 11(2) does not limit the claim. It held, however, that treating the relationship as entrustment or management of another's affairs was not appropriate, since the plaintiff paid the users' charges in bulk as their agent, and that Article 30(1) of the Port Corporation Act was not the delegation basis for Article 13(3). Neither error affected the outcome, and all four Justices dismissed the defendant's appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A matter on which the Port Corporation Act itself makes a special provision, since the former Port Act applies only where the Port Corporation Act does not.
- Special circumstances that make monthly settlement of the advanced charges difficult, since the 20th-of-the-month date rests on the absence of such circumstances.
- A charge period governed by Article 13(3) of the Enforcement Decree as amended by Presidential Decree No. 28139 of 20 June 2017 or later, since the Court read the earlier text.
Record verification notes
Fix first which text of Article 13(3) of the Port Corporation Act Enforcement Decree governed each charge period, and whether the Port Corporation Act makes a special provision on that period. Then list each month's claim with the date it was made and any circumstance said to excuse the monthly settlement. The Court read the 20th of the following month as an administrative convenience rather than a time bar, so the dates alone decide nothing.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 항만공사법 시행령 제13조 제3항이 항만공사에 대납경비 지급 여부에 관한 재량을 부여하는 규정인지 문제 된 사안에서, 위 조항은 항만공사에 대납경비 지급 여부에 관한 재량을 부여하는 규정이 아니라고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례 [2] 구 항만법과 항만공사법이 일반법과 특별법의 관계에 있는지 여부(적극) 및 구 항만공사법 시행령 제13조 제3항이 구 항만법 제30조 제5항에 따른 항만시설 사용료 대납경비청구권 제도가 당연히 적용된다는 것을 주의적·확인적으로 규정한 것인지 여부(적극) [3] 항만공사법 시행규칙 제11조 제2항에서 ‘대납경비를 지급받으려는 자는 매월분의 대납경비를 다음 달 20일까지 공사에 청구하여야 한다.’고 정한 취지
Unofficial English translation
[1] A case in which, where the question arose whether Article 13(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Port Authority Act is a provision granting discretion to a port authority as to whether to pay expenses paid on another's behalf, the court below's determination that the aforesaid provision is not a provision granting such discretion was affirmed [2] Whether the former Port Act and the Port Authority Act stand in the relationship of general law and special law (affirmative), and whether Article 13(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Port Authority Act is a provision declaratorily and confirmatorily stipulating that the system of claim for expenses paid on another's behalf for port facility use fees under Article 30(5) of the former Port Act naturally applies to a port authority (affirmative) [3] The purport of Article 11(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Port Authority Act providing that 'A person who intends to receive payment of expenses paid on another's behalf must claim from the corporation the expenses paid on another's behalf for each month by the 20th day of the following month.'
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 항만공사법 시행령(2017. 6. 20. 대통령령 제28139호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제13조 제3항이 항만공사에 대납경비 지급 여부에 관한 재량을 부여하는 규정인지 문제 된 사안에서, 위 조항은 해양수산부령에 대납경비청구권의 내용과 절차를 구체화하도록 수권하는 규정일 뿐, 항만공사에 대납경비 지급 여부에 관한 재량을 부여하는 규정이 아니라고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례. [2] 구 항만법(2019. 1. 15. 법률 제16287호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다)은 항만의 지정·개발·관리·사용과 재개발에 관한 사항을 정하는 것을 목적으로 하고(구 항만법 제1조), 항만공사법은 일정한 무역항에 항만공사를 설립하여 항만시설의 개발과 관리·운영에 관한 업무의 전문성과 효율성을 높이는 것을 목적으로 한다(항만공사법 제1조). 위와 같은 입법 목적, 관련 규정의 내용과 체제 등을 종합하면, 구 항만법과 항만공사법은 항만시설의 개발과 관리·운영에 관하여 일반법과 특별법의 관계에 있다고 보아야 한다. 따라서 항만공사법이 특별히 정하지 않은 사항에 관해서는 일반법인 구 항만법이 적용되어야 한다. 이러한 견지에서 항만시설 사용료 대납경비청구권에 관한 항만법령과 항만공사법령의 규정을 살펴보면, 구 항만공사법 시행령(2017. 6. 20. 대통령령 제28139호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제13조 제3항은 항만공사법에는 규정되어 있지 않은 새로운 제도를 시행령 단계에서 비로소 도입하는 창설적 규정이 아니라 항만공사의 경우에도 구 항만법 제30조 제5항에 따른 항만시설 사용료 대납경비청구권 제도가 당연히 적용된다는 것을 주의적·확인적으로 규정한 것이라고 보는 것이 타당하다. [3] 항만시설 사용료 대납경비 지급 제도의 입법 취지와 관련 규정의 내용과 체제 등을 종합하면, ‘대납경비를 지급받으려는 자는 매월분의 대납경비를 다음 달 20일까지 공사에 청구하여야 한다.’고 정한 항만공사법 시행규칙 제11조 제2항은 해상화물운송사업자와 항만공사 상호 간의 업무편의를 위해 대납경비를 특별한 사정이 없는 한 1개월마다 정산하도록 하려는 취지이다. 이것이 다음 달 20일이 지나면 해당 월의 대납경비청구권을 더 이상 행사하지 못하도록 제한하려는 것은 아니다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 항만공사법 시행령(2017. 6. 20. 대통령령 제28139호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제13조 제3항 [2] 구 항만법(2019. 1. 15. 법률 제16287호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제1조, 제30조 제5항, 항만공사법 제1조, 구 항만공사법 시행령(2017. 6. 20. 대통령령 제28139호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제13조 제3항 [3] 항만공사법 시행규칙 제11조 제2항
Read 2026-10-26 · Cross-read 2026-10-26. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger