B. Whether a separate nationalization procedure is necessary for the extinction of the landowner’s right existing in a river (negative)

(c) Whether ownership of the previous owner is acquired where the developed land has been re-dried for a tide embankment work (negative);

2. The right of the land owner shall not be extinguished only when the land that has come into a river is prepared by the river management agency or such procedures are taken to nationalize the river section and zone, such as the public announcement of the river area.

3. The former owner does not acquire the ownership again because the land, the ownership of which was extinguished due to the decline, was re-embankinged into a tide embankment.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The disposition of replotting taken by the Korea Agriculture Promotion Corporation as part of the farmland improvement project under the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act is an act that belongs to the exercise of public authority by which the contents of land rights are exchanged, divided or combined without the intention of the right holder, and it is reasonable to view that it has the nature of administrative act (see Supreme Court Decision 64Nu106 delivered on June 22, 1965). In this regard, the reasoning of the judgment below that the plaintiffs' lawsuit seeking a substitute land of certain contents as a civil lawsuit against the defendant Agriculture Promotion Corporation is unlawful and dismissed is without merit.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged that the land of this case was located adjacent to the lower court of 1,000 river basin, which was originally located in the lower court of 50 years ago, and it was down down to the low flood level, and it was down to the lower court of 1973 when the land was cut down to the lower court again, but it was down to the lower court’s tideland. However, in comparison with the records, the court below’s fact-finding is just, and there is no serious error of law such as misunderstanding of facts. Thus, since the land of this case was removed from the lower court of 6th century and its restoration was considerably difficult by social norms, and it is not justified in the judgment of the court below that the previous owner’s ownership of the land of this case was permanently extinguished, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of 17th of the previous judgment or in the judgment of the court below that it did not constitute a violation of the law of 197th fiveth of the River Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)