Parking Lot Storing Seized Vehicle for 17 Years... "State Must Pay Storage Fees" Ruling

“Demand for Storage Fees of 41st Term” Lawsuit Filed Against the State
“Agreement Not Included” First Trial Overturned... Supreme Court Finalized

The Supreme Court has ruled that the state must pay storage fees to a parking lot operator who stored court-seized vehicles for over 17 years.

According to the legal community, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Oh Kyung-mi) on the 27th of last month finalized the appellate court's decision partially ruling in favor of parking operator A in a lawsuit against the state claiming storage fees.

From 2004 to 2021, A entered into a vehicle storage contract with the Gwangju District Court Enforcement Officer's Office and stored vehicles in his parking lot. These were 41 vehicles seized by the court under past delivery orders but for which creditors did not apply for auction or whose auction procedures were canceled.

Initially, A stored 20 vehicles, but the number increased to 41 as other storage operators, citing management issues, entrusted A with possession of their vehicles.

During this process, the contract was made verbally without a separate written agreement, and in 2014, A submitted a memorandum stating that he would faithfully store the entrusted movable property for a fixed fee and would not charge any additional costs beyond the agreed fee from creditors or other parties involved in the case.

The photo is not directly related to the article content.

In 2019, A filed a lawsuit against the state demanding over 900 million won for the costs of storing the vehicles to date. Although there was no explicit deposit contract with the Enforcement Officer's Office, A argued that since there was a verbal contract to entrust vehicle storage, the state should pay the storage fees.

According to management guidelines, the daily storage fees are 6,000 won for passenger cars, 15,000 won for large buses and construction machinery such as forklifts, and 6,000 won for special vehicles.

The Government Legal Service, representing the state, argued that the contract made in 2018 did not imply that the state or the Enforcement Officer's Office would directly pay the storage fees. They claimed that the creditors who applied for the vehicle auction or the debtor who owns the vehicle should pay.

The first-instance court rejected A's claim, reasoning that the plaintiff's main content was to receive only the storage fees set by the Gwangju District Court Enforcement Officer's Office from the parties involved, and there was no agreement for the defendant to directly pay the plaintiff storage fees for the seized vehicles.

However, the appellate court overturned the first-instance ruling. The court held that "contracts such as deposit contracts related to vehicle storage are concluded by the court in its capacity as a state agency, so the legal obligor is the state, and therefore the storage operator cannot seek reimbursement of storage costs directly from individuals, creditors, or debtors."

The Supreme Court also sided with A. The Supreme Court ruled, "Since the storage operator plaintiff stored the vehicles involved in this case for the defendant within the scope of his business, he can claim compensation equivalent to the storage fees for these vehicles from the defendant under the Commercial Act," thereby finalizing the judgment.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.