Seoul City has lost its final appeal in a lawsuit seeking to cancel a 42.1 billion won charge imposed by the Korea Railroad Corporation for the use of the Gyeongui Line Forest Trail park area.
On August 12, the Supreme Court's second division, led by Justice Eom Sang-pil, upheld the lower court's ruling that favored the Korea Railroad Corporation in the compensation lawsuit.
The court stated, "Seoul City cannot be considered to have the right to occupy and use the land free of charge based on agreements or other legal grounds."
The Gyeongui Line Forest Trail, a park stretching approximately 6.3 kilometers from Hyochang Park Station to Gajwa Station, was developed following an agreement between Seoul City and the Korea Railroad Corporation in 2010, which included a promise for the free use of state-owned land after the Gyeongui Line was buried underground.
However, issues arose after the enforcement decree of the State Property Act was amended in April 2011, prohibiting the free rental of state-owned land for more than one year.
As a result, the Korea Railroad Corporation imposed a charge of 42.1 billion won on Seoul City for the use of the state-owned property after the agreement expired. In response, Seoul City filed a lawsuit in February 2021 seeking to cancel the charge.
In the first trial, a ruling in January 2024 favored Seoul City. The court noted, "Seoul City had insisted on free use as a condition for the park project from the beginning of negotiations with the Korea Railroad Corporation, which proposed 'handling of state property' as a way to cooperate with Seoul City's request for land provision." The court interpreted this as an intention to exempt the usage fee for long-term free use of the land, given that park facilities would likely remain permanently on the former railway site.
However, the appellate court overturned the first ruling in February of last year, stating, "It is difficult to view the alleged 'free use agreement' as existing in the contract between Seoul City and the Korea Railroad Corporation," and concluded that the imposition of the charge was lawful.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.