변상금제도의 비교법적 검토와 합리적인 운용방안

I study the legal character of Indemnity system. Indemnity, is “if someone use it to occupy state-owned assets without permission, loan or use of state-owned assets, profits, etc., it should be paid equivalent to 120/100 interests as the punitive State Tax on Tax Collection of delinquent enforce Act”. December 31, 1976, State Properties of the Internal Revenue Service revised the work transferred to local governments in state-owned property. And at the time state-owned property was acquisitive prescription ban by Article 5 paragraph 2, in order to prevent the privatization of state property. Then 15 years later, May 13, 1991 Act, acquisitive prescription some exclusion to the state-owned hybrid the property became to be unconstitutional by the decision of the Constitutional Court of Justice. Conditions, because administrative management is the lack about the state-owned property, Indemnity is not often implemented properly state-owned property. But Since the decision of Constitutional Court, government instruct be state-owned asset management guidelines. it is the imposing using of Indemnity system. Accordingly, Seoul, as the one of public property management, instructed the management plan of the occupied property, March 8, 1993. Accordingly, local governments searched legal state-owned property, possession and Indemnity. Many people, the minimum cost of living recipients or small income of the unauthorized farmer often use public land or property. they do not have another way to avoid using public property. Therefore, this article examines the legal character of Indemnity system. we review the constitutional evidence and justification of Indemnity system. Meanwhile, Indemnity system recognize system of an institution of executive power advantages. I recommend Indemnity system to payment plan in a divided sum, no in a lump sum, for the minimum cost of living recipients etc. administratively. And state and local government should examine for the alternative measures.