In a recent decision of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, the relationship between the Indemnity imposed for occupying any State property without permission and Legal Superficies under customary law was at issue. The appellant in the administrative appeal owned a house on his own land and later exchanged the land for state-owned land. The appellant's house occupied state-owned land because only the land owned by the appellant was changed to state-owned land. The State Land Management Agency imposed compensation on the appellant for occupying any State property without permission, and the appellant filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission to cancel the imposition of compensation. The Central Administrative Appeals Commission held that the imposition of compensation was unlawful and should be canceled, as the appellant had acquired legal superficies under customary law and could not be considered occupying without permission because its term of existence had not expired. The State Property Act, which was enacted for the proper protection and efficient management of state property, stipulates the imposition of compensation as a punitive financial sanction for occupying any State property without permission. The requirements for imposing compensation under the State Property Act can be divided into active requirements, such as use, profit, or occupation of state property, and passive requirements, such as the absence of obtaining permission for use or signing a loan contract. In particular, with regard to the passive requirement, it is questionable whether the existence of legal superficies under customary law can be interpreted as a reason to eliminate the passive requirement of imposing compensation under the State Property Act, even though the State Property Act explicitly stipulates the absence of obtaining permission for use or signing a loan contract. In other words, it is questionable whether it can be interpreted as a reason for exclusion from imposition of compensation. Therefore, this study examined whether it is possible to broadly interpret the existence of the legal superficies under customary law as a reason for resolving the passive requirement of imposition of indemnity under the State Property Act, i.e., a reason for excluding the subject of imposition of indemnity, focusing on ruling case of administrative appeals. In this regard, this study also examined the relationship between the State Property Act and civil law, and whether it would violate the principle of supremacy of law and the principle of statutory reservation, which are the content of the principle of rule of law in administration. This study also examined the requirements for the establishment of legal superficies under customary law and the duration of their existence, which were at issue in the subject ruling case. This study additionally examined the extinctive prescription for the right to impose compensation, the legal status of a purchaser of a house with a legal superficies under customary law, and the possibility of charging a rent fee, which were not directly at issue in the subject ruling case. Finally, legislative suggestions were made to amend the provisions on the passive requirement of imposing compensation under the State Property Act in accordance with the purpose of the case law, which interprets it as 'the right or legal status to justify the occupation or use of state property'.