국유재산 무단점유와 변상금부과의 승계여부

Article 72, Paragraph 1 of the State Property Act stipulates that the head of a central government agency, etc., shall collect, from a person occupying any State property without permission, an indemnity. However, the question arises: if a person who has unauthorizedly occupied state property dies before the indemnity has been imposed, can the indemnity be imposed on the person's heir? Furthermore, if a indemnity imposition has been issued but not collected, can the indemnity be collected from the person's heir if the person dies? This article explores these issues, examining ① whether the grounds for imposing a indemnity payment incurred against a deceased person are inherited by the heir based on the general theory of succession to sanctions, and whether indemnity can be collected from the heir based on the notice of indemnity imposed on the deceased person; ② whether an heir can be notified of indemnity based on the doctrine of return of unjust enrichment; and ③ whether it is valid for an heir to assert the principle of forfeiture of authority (lapse) as a basis for denying succession. First, based on the general theory of succession to the grounds for and effect of sanctions, if individual laws and regulations provide a basis for such provisions, they can be followed. However, in the absence of such a basis, determining succession based on whether the nature of the indemnity imposition is in rem or in personam disposition is limited. Therefore, this paper proposes a method to recognize the succession of heirs to the imposition of indemnity and the disposition of indemnity through individual public law provisions recognizing succession, particularly provisions regarding the inheritance of tax debt, and their interpretation. Next, succession can be recognized through the legal doctrine of return of unjust enrichment. In light of the purpose of the unjust enrichment system, if a person gains profit without legal justification by occupying state-owned property without a proper use permit or lease agreement, thereby causing damage to the state as the owner of the state-owned property, returning the profit to rectify the property situation between the unauthorized possessor and the state is consistent with the ideals of fairness and justice. Furthermore, heirs can deny succession to the imposition and collection of indemnity based on the principles of forfeiture or lapse of rights. Specifically, this paper examines whether the principle of forfeiture of rights holds significance separately from the statute of limitations on indemnity. While the statute of limitations applies to the imposition and collection of indemnity, the principle of actual power has its own significance, and thus, we examined whether the imposition and collection of indemnity can be restricted by this principle. In conclusion, interpretive theory in the absence of explicit provisions in positive law has limitations. For intrusive administrative actions that restrict citizens' rights or impose obligations, it would be preferable to establish a legal basis based on the principle of legal reservation, which requires a legal basis.