Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Unauthorised occupancy of public property and the basis of the restitution charge
Supreme Court, Sept. 9, 2019, 2018Du48298 (judgment)
Case name: 시유재산변상금부과처분취소청구
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Is a person who, without a use and benefit permission or an accepted plaza use report, tangibly and fixedly occupies part of Seoul Plaza engaged in the unauthorised occupancy that attracts a restitution charge under Article 81(1) of the Common Property and Articles Management Act, and may the Seoul Plaza fee standard be used to calculate that charge?
Holding
Yes to the first question and no to the second. Occupying an administrative property without a use and benefit permission, for a tangible and fixed purpose of one's own, is unauthorised occupancy under Article 81(1) of the Common Property and Articles Management Act; the use need not be exclusive, and an area that is also open to the public may still be occupied, so the plaintiff's protest equipment and night tent qualified. The Seoul Plaza fee standard, which sets a minimum use area of 500 m², governs only permitted use or an accepted use report, so the charge must instead be calculated on the actually occupied area, using the formula in the Act and its Enforcement Decree with the use rate set by Article 22 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Common Property and Articles Ordinance and the 120% rate.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
사용·수익허가 없이 행정재산을 유형적·고정적으로 특정한 목적을 위하여 사용·수익하거나 점유하는 경우 공유재산법 제81조 제1항에서 정한 변상금 부과대상인 ‘무단점유’에 해당하고, 반드시 그 사용이 독점적·배타적일 필요는 없으며, 점유 부분이 동시에 일반 공중의 이용에 제공되고 있다고 하여 점유가 아니라고 할 수는 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Where a person uses or takes possession of public property in a tangible and fixed manner for a specific purpose without permission for use and profit, it corresponds to 'unauthorized occupation,' which is subject to the imposition of a charge in lieu of restitution under Article 81 (1) of the Act on the Management of Public Property and Goods, and such use does not necessarily have to be monopolistic or exclusive, and the fact that the part in possession is at the same time provided for use by the general public cannot be regarded as meaning that there is no possession.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
서울광장의 무단점유에 따른 변상금은 공유재산 및 물품관리법령에서 정한 ‘무단점유면적 × 해당 공유재산의 면적단위별 평정가격 × 무단점유기간/연 × 사용요율 × 120%’의 계산식에 실제 무단점유면적과 공유재산 및 물품관리법 시행령 제14조 제1항의 위임에 따라 서울특별시 공유재산 및 물품관리 조례 제22조에서 정한 사용요율을 적용하여 산정·부과하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
A charge in lieu of restitution arising from unauthorized occupation of Seoul Plaza must be calculated and imposed by applying the actual area of unauthorized occupation and the usage rate prescribed in Article 22 of the Seoul Metropolitan Ordinance on the Management of Public Property and Goods, pursuant to the delegation under Article 14 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Management of Public Property and Goods, according to the formula of 'area of unauthorized occupation × appraised value per unit of area of the relevant public property × period of unauthorized occupation in years × usage rate × 120%' prescribed in the Act on the Management of Public Property and Goods and its Enforcement Decree.
Factors
- 사용·수익허가 없이 행정재산을 유형적·고정적으로 특정한 목적을 위하여 사용·수익하거나 점유하는 경우
- 반드시 그 사용이 독점적·배타적일 필요는 없으며
- 서울광장의 일부를 유형적·고정적으로 점유하는 경우에는 점유 부분에 대한 불특정 다수 시민의 광장 이용이 제한될 것이므로
- 서울광장 사용료 기준은 서울광장의 사용·수익허가 또는 사용신고 수리에 적용되는 기준일 뿐이고
Unofficial English translation
• Where a person uses or takes possession of public property in a tangible and fixed manner for a specific purpose without permission for use and profit
• Such use does not necessarily have to be monopolistic or exclusive, and
• Where a part of Seoul Plaza is occupied in a tangible and fixed manner, the use of the plaza by an unspecified number of citizens in the part in possession will be restricted, and therefore
• The Standards for Seoul Plaza Use Fees are merely standards applied to permission for use and profit of Seoul Plaza or to the acceptance of a report on use, and
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1993. 5. 11. 선고 92누13325 판결(공1993하, 1725)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13325 decided May 11, 1993 (Gong 1993 Ha, 1725)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1993. 5. 11. 선고 92누13325 판결(공1993하, 1725), 대법원 2004. 10. 15. 선고 2002다68485 판결(공2004하, 1807)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a local ordinance has not fixed the use rate delegated by Article 14(1) of the Enforcement Decree, which rate is to be used in the restitution charge formula?
An amendment to Article 81(1) of the Act, including a change to the 120% rate the Court said could be raised by legislation, or to Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree, would require this entry to be read again. So would a change to the use rate in Article 22 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Common Property and Articles Ordinance, or a later decision applying the formula to other kinds of public property.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where a local ordinance has not fixed the use rate delegated by Article 14(1) of the Enforcement Decree, which rate is to be used in the restitution charge formula?” vs Independent “How should the actual occupied area and occupation period be measured when physical use of the plaza changes intermittently over time?”
The primary asks which use rate applies when the ordinance sets none, while the independent reading asks how to measure area and period when physical use fluctuates. These are different gaps.
사용·수익허가 없이 행정재산을 유형적·고정적으로 특정한 목적을 위하여 사용·수익하거나 점유하는 경우 공유재산법 제81조 제1항에서 정한 변상금 부과대상인 ‘무단점유’에 해당하고, 반드시 그 사용이 독점적·배타적일 필요는 없으며, 점유 부분이 동시에 일반 공중의 이용에 제공되고 있다고 하여 점유가 아니라고 할 수는 없다.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 High Court, in its judgment of 14 June 2018 (2018Nu35829), held that the plaintiff's conduct constituted unauthorised occupancy of Seoul Plaza and of the Seoul Metropolitan Government office site attracting a restitution charge under Article 81(1) of the Act. It also held that the charge for the unauthorised occupancy of Seoul Plaza was to be calculated by applying the Seoul Plaza fee standard, that is, by taking the minimum use area of 500 m² as the occupied area, pricing it under that standard and multiplying the result by the 120% rate. The decision does not set out the court below's reasons for either holding.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the conclusion that the plaintiff's conduct was unauthorised occupancy, since the protest equipment and tent physically and continuously occupied space that others could not use, and a lawful protest purpose does not exempt a person from paying for occupying public property. It held, however, that the court below had misunderstood the statutory basis for calculating the charge, because the Seoul Plaza fee standard presupposes a permitted area and applying its 500 m² minimum would impose a charge on an area never occupied, in this case about 284 times the actual 1.76 m², breaching proportionality. It reversed the whole judgment and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A user who merely passes through the plaza, stays for leisure or temporarily places an object there, since the Court distinguished these forms of ordinary use from tangibly and fixedly occupying a space.
- A person who has obtained a use and benefit permission or an accepted plaza use report, so that no unauthorised occupancy exists and the fee standard governs the fee, not the charge.
- An ordinary one-person protest with a picket or a signboard worn round the neck, which the Court said would not amount to occupancy.
Record verification notes
Measure the space the protest equipment and tent actually and continuously held, with its area and the dates of each charge, since the Court required the actual occupied area rather than a presumed one. Then check which use rate the Seoul Metropolitan Government Common Property and Articles Ordinance set for that property and the unit assessed price used, and confirm that the property concerned is an administrative property governed by Article 81(1).
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 사용·수익허가 없이 행정재산을 유형적·고정적으로 특정한 목적을 위하여 사용·수익하거나 점유하는 경우, 공유재산 및 물품관리법 제81조 제1항에서 정한 변상금 부과대상인 ‘무단점유’에 해당하는지 여부(적극) [2] 서울광장의 사용 및 관리에 관한 조례에서 정한 바에 따라 광장사용신고 및 서울특별시장의 사용신고 수리를 거치지 않은 채 서울광장을 무단사용한 경우, 공유재산 및 물품관리법상 변상금 부과대상인 무단점유에 해당하는지 여부(적극) [3] 공유재산 및 물품관리법 시행령 제14조 제2항의 위임에 따라 서울광장의 사용 및 관리에 관한 조례 제10조 제1항 [별표]에서 정한 ‘서울광장 사용료 기준’을 서울광장의 무단점유에 따른 변상금 산정·부과에 적용할 수 있는지 여부(소극) 및 서울광장의 무단점유에 따른 변상금을 산정하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether a case where a person uses or takes possession of public property in a tangible and fixed manner for a specific purpose without permission for use and profit corresponds to 'unauthorized occupation,' which is subject to the imposition of a charge in lieu of restitution under Article 81 (1) of the Act on the Management of Public Property and Goods (affirmative) [2] Whether a case where a person has used Seoul Plaza without authorization without filing a report on the use of the plaza and without the Mayor of the Seoul Metropolitan Government accepting the report on use, in accordance with the Ordinance on the Use and Management of Seoul Plaza, corresponds to unauthorized occupation, which is subject to the imposition of a charge in lieu of restitution under the Act on the Management of Public Property and Goods (affirmative) [3] Whether the 'Standards for Seoul Plaza Use Fees' prescribed in [Appendix Table] to Article 10 (1) of the Ordinance on the Use and Management of Seoul Plaza, pursuant to the delegation under Article 14 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Management of Public Property and Goods, may be applied to the calculation and imposition of a charge in lieu of restitution arising from unauthorized occupation of Seoul Plaza (negative), and the method of calculating a charge in lieu of restitution arising from unauthorized occupation of Seoul Plaza
Summary of the holding
[1] 공유재산 및 물품관리법(이하 ‘공유재산법’이라 한다) 제1조, 제6조 제1항, 제20조, 제22조, 제81조 제1항 본문의 내용과 변상금 제도의 입법 취지에 비추어 보면, 사용·수익허가 없이 행정재산을 유형적·고정적으로 특정한 목적을 위하여 사용·수익하거나 점유하는 경우 공유재산법 제81조 제1항에서 정한 변상금 부과대상인 ‘무단점유’에 해당하고, 반드시 그 사용이 독점적·배타적일 필요는 없으며, 점유 부분이 동시에 일반 공중의 이용에 제공되고 있다고 하여 점유가 아니라고 할 수는 없다. [2] 서울광장의 사용 및 관리에 관한 조례(이하 ‘서울광장조례’라 한다) 제2조 제1호는 "사용"이란 서울광장의 일부 또는 전부를 이용함으로써 불특정 다수 시민의 자유로운 광장 이용을 제한하는 행위를 말한다고 규정하고 있으나, 서울광장의 일부를 유형적·고정적으로 점유하는 경우에는 점유 부분에 대한 불특정 다수 시민의 광장 이용이 제한될 것이므로, 서울광장조례에서 정한 바에 따라 광장사용신고 및 서울특별시장의 사용신고 수리를 거치지 않은 채 서울광장을 무단사용한 경우에는 공유재산 및 물품관리법상 변상금 부과대상인 무단점유에 해당한다고 보아야 한다. 즉, 서울광장조례의 서울광장 "사용" 정의규정에 따라 변상금 부과대상인 무단점유인지에 관한 판단이 달라진다고 볼 수는 없다. [3] 서울광장의 사용 및 관리에 관한 조례(이하 ‘서울광장조례’라 한다)의 법적 성질과 변상금에 관한 법리를 기초로 공유재산 및 물품관리법 시행령 제14조 제2항의 위임에 따라 서울광장조례 제10조 제1항 [별표]에서 500㎡를 최소 사용면적으로 하여 서울광장의 광장사용료 기준을 정하고 있는 ‘서울광장 사용료 기준’의 규정 내용을 살펴보면, 서울광장 사용료 기준은 서울광장의 사용·수익허가 또는 사용신고 수리에 적용되는 기준일 뿐이고, 이를 서울광장의 무단점유에 따른 변상금 산정·부과에 적용할 수는 없다. 서울광장의 무단점유에 따른 변상금은 공유재산 및 물품관리법령에서 정한 ‘무단점유면적 × 해당 공유재산의 면적단위별 평정가격 × 무단점유기간/연 × 사용요율 × 120%’의 계산식에 실제 무단점유면적과 공유재산 및 물품관리법 시행령 제14조 제1항의 위임에 따라 서울특별시 공유재산 및 물품관리 조례 제22조에서 정한 사용요율을 적용하여 산정·부과하여야 한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 공유재산 및 물품관리법 제1조, 제6조 제1항, 제20조, 제22조, 제81조 제1항 [2] 공유재산 및 물품관리법 제81조 제1항 [3] 공유재산 및 물품관리법 제22조 제1항, 제81조 제1항, 공유재산 및 물품관리법 시행령 제14조 제1항, 제2항, 제81조 제1항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. 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