Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Property value at the time of bidding in the formula for later-year use fees
Supreme Court, May 8, 2026, 2023Du55429 (judgment)
Case name: 사용료부과처분무효확인의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
In the formula set by Article 29(6) of the Enforcement Decree on Public Property for use fees from the second year onwards after a permission granted by competitive bid, must ‘the property value at the time of bidding’ be computed from the individual published land price of the year in which the bid was held, rather than from the property value that had been used to fix the first year's fee?
Holding
It must. Reading Article 32(1) of the Public Property Act and Article 29(2)(i) and 29(6) of its Enforcement Decree together, the Court held that ‘the property value at the time of bidding’ means the value at the moment of the bid, so the individual published land price of the bid year is the base. Reading it as the property value used to fix the first year's fee would go beyond the ordinary meaning of ‘at the time of bidding’, would carry rate changes from a period outside the permission into the fee and could reflect two years of increase at once, and any shortfall in reflecting later increases is a matter for amendment of the regulation rather than for its interpretation.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
위 시행령 제29조 제6항 본문의 ‘경쟁입찰로 사용허가를 하는 경우 2차 연도 이후 기간의 사용료 계산식’[(입찰로 결정된 첫해의 사용료) × (제2항에 따라 산출한 해당 연도의 재산가액) ÷ (입찰 당시의 재산가액)]에서 ‘입찰 당시의 재산가액’은 ‘입찰이 이루어진 해의 개별공시지가’를 기초로 산출하여야 한다고 보는 것이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
In the "formula for calculating the usage fee for the period of the second year and thereafter where a usage permit is granted through competitive bidding" [ (usage fee for the first year determined by the bidding) × (property value for the relevant year calculated pursuant to paragraph (2)) ÷ (property value at the time of bidding) ] in the main sentence of Article 29 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act, it is reasonable to view that the "property value at the time of bidding" must be calculated on the basis of the "individual publicly announced land price for the year in which the bidding took place."
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
위 계산식에서의 ‘입찰 당시의 재산가액’은 ‘입찰이 이루어진 때의 재산가액’이라고 해석하는 것이 문언상 자연스럽다.
Unofficial English translation
It is natural on the face of the text to interpret the "property value at the time of bidding" in the above formula as "the property value as of the time when the bidding took place."
Factors
- ‘입찰 당시’라는 문언의 통상적인 의미를 벗어난다
- 입찰 예정가격은 입찰 참가를 위한 최저한도를 의미할 뿐이고 통상적으로 낙찰가격은 예정가격보다 높게 형성된다
- 국유재산법 시행령 제29조 제6항 본문이 2차 연도 이후의 사용료를 위 계산식에 따라 산출하도록 규정한 취지는 낙찰가에 해당하는 ‘입찰로 결정된 첫해의 사용료’를 기준으로 매년 재산가액의 변동률을 2차 연도 이후의 사용료에 반영하고자 하는 데 있다
- 국유재산의 사용기간에 포함되지 않은 기간의 재산가액 변동률까지 추가적으로 고려하여 사용료가 산정될 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 2년치의 재산가액 증가분이 한꺼번에 반영될 여지도 있어 위 계산식을 둔 입법 목적과 취지에 부합하지 않는다
- 이는 법령의 개정을 통해 해결할 문제이지 법령 해석으로 해결할 수 있는 문제가 아니다
Unofficial English translation
• It departs from the ordinary meaning of the phrase "at the time of bidding"
• The anticipated bidding price merely signifies the minimum threshold for participation in the bidding, and ordinarily the successful bid price is formed higher than the anticipated price
• The purpose of the provision of the main sentence of Article 29 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act, which prescribes that the usage fee for the second year and thereafter be calculated pursuant to the above formula, is to reflect the rate of change in the property value each year in the usage fee for the second year and thereafter, using as the standard the "usage fee for the first year determined by the bidding" corresponding to the successful bid price
• Not only may the usage fee be calculated by additionally taking into account the rate of change in the property value for a period not included in the usage period of the State property, but there is also room for an increase in the property value for two years to be reflected all at once, which is inconsistent with the legislative purpose and intent of establishing the above formula
• This is a matter to be resolved through amendment of statutes and regulations and not a matter that can be resolved through interpretation of statutes and regulations
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2023. 6. 29. 선고 2023두31782 판결 등 참조
Unofficial English translation
See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2023Du31782 decided June 29, 2023
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the individual published land price of the bid year had not been announced when the later year's fee was imposed, which date's price is the base for ‘the property value at the time of bidding’?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court, once it recalculates the 2021 and 2022 fees on the bid-year land price, will show how the formula is applied in practice and how any unreflected increase is treated. Any amendment to Article 29(6) of the Enforcement Decree on Public Property, or a later Supreme Court decision on the base value, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “Follows earlier decisions” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary may infer continuity with precedent from the interpretive reasoning, while the independent may mark the relationship as unverifiable because the supplied text identifies no prior decision.
대법원 2023. 6. 29. 선고 2023두31782 판결 등 참조Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the individual published land price of the bid year had not been announced when the later year's fee was imposed, which date's price is the base for ‘the property value at the time of bidding’?” vs Independent “How should legislation address increases in property value that may remain unreflected under this interpretation of the fee formula?”
The primary asks which price applies if the bid year's price remains unpublished, while the independent asks how legislation should address unreflected increases.
위 시행령 제29조 제6항 본문의 ‘경쟁입찰로 사용허가를 하는 경우 2차 연도 이후 기간의 사용료 계산식’[(입찰로 결정된 첫해의 사용료) × (제2항에 따라 산출한 해당 연도의 재산가액) ÷ (입찰 당시의 재산가액)]에서 ‘입찰 당시의 재산가액’은 ‘입찰이 이루어진 해의 개별공시지가’를 기초로 산출하여야 한다고 보는 것이 타당하다.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 31 August 2023 (2022Nu64459), held that ‘the property value at the time of bidding’ means the property value used to fix the first year's fee, so that the 2018 individual published land price, on which the estimated bid price had been based, also served as the base for the 2021 and 2022 fees, and upheld the fee impositions. It reasoned that this reading follows the purpose of reflecting the annual change in property value from the first year's fee, and that the opposite reading would ignore that change or make the later fees turn on the accident of whether the land price had been announced by the bid notice date. It added that the plaintiff had bid on the strength of an estimated price built on the 2018 price, so the winning fee could not be treated as set apart from that estimate.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that this was a misinterpretation of Article 29(6) of the Enforcement Decree on Public Property that affected the outcome. An adverse administrative measure must be construed strictly within the ordinary meaning of its wording, so ‘the property value at the time of bidding’ had to rest on the individual published land price of the year in which the bid was held, and the court below was wrong to use the 2018 price. The Court therefore reversed the whole judgment and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court, on the unanimous opinion of the Justices sitting.
Distinguishing conditions
- A permission granted without competitive bid, since the first year's fee in that case is not set by the highest bid price and the formula in Article 29(6) does not govern.
- A dispute over the first year's fee itself, which is fixed at the highest bid price and not by the disputed formula.
- A dispute resting only on the ground that part of the later increase in property value was not reflected in the fee, which the Court said is to be settled by amending the regulation rather than by interpreting it.
Record verification notes
Fix the three dates first: the bid notice date, the date the bid was held and the date the fee for each year was imposed, and match each with the individual published land price then in force, since the Court ties the base to the bid year. Then set the first year's fee and the estimated bid price apart, because the Court held that the winning fee does not move with the estimated price. Note that the Court acknowledged the concern that part of the later increase may go unreflected but held that it is to be solved by amending the regulation rather than by interpretation, so a file showing that shortfall should be gathered as factual material rather than argued as a point of interpretation.
From the official text
Points at issue
국유재산법 시행령 제29조 제6항 본문의 ‘경쟁입찰로 사용허가를 하는 경우 2차 연도 이후 기간의 사용료 계산식’에서 ‘입찰 당시의 재산가액’은 ‘입찰로 결정된 첫해 사용료의 산정기준이 된 재산가액 결정 당시의 해당 재산가액’이 아닌 ‘입찰이 이루어진 해의 개별공시지가’를 기초로 산출해야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, in the "formula for calculating the usage fee for the period of the second year and thereafter where a usage permit is granted through competitive bidding" in the main sentence of Article 29 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act, the "property value at the time of bidding" must be calculated on the basis of the "individual publicly announced land price for the year in which the bidding took place" rather than the "relevant property value as of the time of determination of the property value that served as the basis for calculating the usage fee for the first year determined by the bidding" (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
국유재산법 제32조 제1항 본문, 국유재산법 시행령 제29조 제2항 제1호, 제6항 본문의 문언, 체계 및 입법 취지 등을 종합하면, 위 시행령 제29조 제6항 본문의 ‘경쟁입찰로 사용허가를 하는 경우 2차 연도 이후 기간의 사용료 계산식’[(입찰로 결정된 첫해의 사용료) × (제2항에 따라 산출한 해당 연도의 재산가액) ÷ (입찰 당시의 재산가액)]에서 ‘입찰 당시의 재산가액’은 ‘입찰이 이루어진 해의 개별공시지가’를 기초로 산출하여야 한다고 보는 것이 타당하다. 구체적인 이유는 다음과 같다. ① 위 계산식에서의 ‘입찰 당시의 재산가액’은 ‘입찰이 이루어진 때의 재산가액’이라고 해석하는 것이 문언상 자연스럽다. 이를 ‘입찰로 결정된 첫해 사용료의 산정기준이 된 재산가액 결정 당시의 해당 재산가액’이라고 보는 것은 ‘입찰 당시’라는 문언의 통상적인 의미를 벗어난다. ② 경쟁입찰로 사용허가를 하는 경우 입찰 예정가격은 입찰 참가를 위한 최저한도를 의미할 뿐이고 통상적으로 낙찰가격은 예정가격보다 높게 형성된다. 그렇다면 비록 예정가격이 입찰공고 시점으로부터 가장 최근에 공시된 개별공시지가를 적용하여 산출되었더라도, ‘입찰로 결정된 첫해의 사용료’는 위와 같은 개별공시지가와 직접적으로 관련되지 않는 셈이다. 즉 ‘입찰로 결정된 첫해의 사용료’는 낙찰가인 최고 입찰가격으로 결정되는 것이지 가장 최근에 공시된 개별공시지가를 적용하여 산출된 예정가격과 연동하여 결정되는 것은 아니다. ③ 국유재산법 시행령 제29조 제6항 본문이 2차 연도 이후의 사용료를 위 계산식에 따라 산출하도록 규정한 취지는 낙찰가에 해당하는 ‘입찰로 결정된 첫해의 사용료’를 기준으로 매년 재산가액의 변동률을 2차 연도 이후의 사용료에 반영하고자 하는 데 있다. 그런데 만약 ‘입찰 당시의 재산가액’을 ‘입찰로 결정된 첫해 사용료의 산정기준이 된 재산가액 결정 당시의 해당 재산가액’으로 해석한다면 국유재산의 사용기간에 포함되지 않은 기간의 재산가액 변동률까지 추가적으로 고려하여 사용료가 산정될 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 2년치의 재산가액 증가분이 한꺼번에 반영될 여지도 있어 위 계산식을 둔 입법 목적과 취지에 부합하지 않는다. ④ 위 계산식에서의 ‘입찰 당시의 재산가액’을 ‘입찰이 이루어진 때의 재산가액’으로 해석할 경우 재산가액 증가분 중 일부가 제대로 반영되지 못하게 될 우려가 있더라도, 이는 법령의 개정을 통해 해결할 문제이지 법령 해석으로 해결할 수 있는 문제가 아니다.
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
국유재산법 제32조 제1항, 국유재산법 시행령 제29조 제2항 제1호, 제6항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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