[보상금ㆍ소유권이전등기말소][공1985.1.15.(744),75]
In the event there is a change in circumstances, such as the discovery of land or the banking of land that became a State-owned land by converting it into a river area, whether the private right is recovered again (negative)
If the utility of land has been lost because it is difficult to restore the land due to the collapse of the land due to the collapse of the river site, the right to the land has become extinct due to the fall, and if the land has become nationalized as a natural river area as referred to in Article 2 (1) 2 (a) of the River Act, the right to the land shall also be extinguished as of the time when the land has been spread or the river area has become a river area, and there is no room to take into account the subsequent circumstances, and even if the land has been re-ed due to the construction of the bank again, the previous private right shall not be considered.
Article 2(1)2, and Article 3 of the River Act
[Judgment of the court below]
Korea
Gyeonggi-do Attorney Lee Ba-ho, Counsel for defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 83Na2647 delivered on April 11, 1984
The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The Defendant’s grounds of appeal and the Intervenor’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are reviewed.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the allegation that the transfer registration of ownership under the name of the defendant in this case with respect to the height of 380 square meters of the river of Goyang-gun in Gyeonggi-do was valid since the land was spread by large flood in 1925, first of all, as to the fact that the land was reverted to the State under Article 3 of the River Act as the relevant river area with the flowing flowing water of Han River at least once a year since the land was spread by large flood in 1925, Eul evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 22, Eul evidence No. 25, Eul evidence No. 31-8, Eul evidence No. 34-1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 36-2, and non-party No. 1's non-party 2's disposal of the above land within the river area of this case, and rejected the allegation that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the land was unlawful due to the lack of evidence to acknowledge that the land was located within the river area of this case.
In the event a river area became a river area or a river area where a private right has been extinguished due to the fall of the land or the land where the water of the river concerned has been flowing, and the grassland conditions and other circumstances have a flow of the water of the river at least once a year, the area of the land where the water of the river has been flowing, or a river area has been excluded from the area, it shall be determined as of the time when the river area has been flowing, and there is no room for taking these subsequent circumstances into account. However, the court below's primary purpose of testimony and pleading by only on-site verification (the original trial is the copy of the register, the cadastral map copy, the non-party 2 of the first instance court's testimony and pleading, but it is not helpful to the approval of the court below, other than the testimony of the above non-party 2). Even if the land of this case was destroyed due to the lack of the existing right to do so, it cannot be rejected due to the lack of the legal reasoning as to the removal of the land of the river area as stipulated in Article 2 (1) (2) of the River Act.
The evidence of the court below's fact-finding data is not helpful to the fact-finding other than the testimony of Non-Party 2 of the first instance court and the court below's verification result, and it is wrong that the fact-finding was made based on the above verification result. According to the records and the materials rejected by the court below, the water level of 54 points in the Kimpo-si, which is recognized as the neighboring river area, is 6.185 meters in 6.185 meters in 1.945 meters in 1.94 meters in 1.945 meters in 194 meters in 1945 meters in 195 in 1981, and the land and its surrounding circumstances after the construction of the 1981 land, were examined only by the method of on-site verification, and rejected the evidence submitted by the defendant based on the high or low level of the land and rejected the evidence, and the court below's decision that the land in this case is not a river or a river area cannot be exempt from criticism against the rules of evidence.
The issue of whether the land of this case is a river area or not shall not be the recognized data as seen earlier. Therefore, the issue of whether the land of this case belongs to the place where the land of this case was excluded shall be determined based on the situation before the dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical dysical s
Ultimately, the court below did not err in finding facts against the rules of evidence, but did not exhaust all necessary deliberations by misunderstanding the legal principles of the River Act, and thus, it is not possible to escape from criticism that there is any inconsistency in the reasons. The grounds of appeal based on permission are justified.
Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)