[2] The ownership of the bank site and the land excluded therefrom is vested in the case where the river management agency or the person who was permitted or entrusted by the river management agency or the person other than the river management agency has obtained the consent of the installer to manage it as a river appurtenances even if the bank constructed in the applicable river under the former River Act was installed,

[2] Even if an embankment constructed on an applicable river under the former River Act (amended by Act No. 5893 of Feb. 8, 1999), is installed by a river management agency or by a person who is permitted or entrusted by the river management agency, or is installed by a person other than a river management agency, if the river management agency obtains the consent of the installer in order to manage the embankment as a river appurtenances, the site of the embankment and the land excluded from the embankment shall be owned by the river management agency as a matter of course in accordance with the provisions of the Act,

1. The court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the flood situation was nationalized due to the prolonged flow of the Nakdong River, such as getting on and getting on the ship and getting on the river, as the water flow of the Nakdong River changes from a large flood around 1950 to a large flood around 1950, it is reasonable to review the process and judgment of the evidence and the records in light of the records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or any violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Article 5 of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Losses (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act") and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that where a project implementer, in consultation with a person who has been issued a confirmation document confirming that he/she is a legitimate right holder, paid compensation to him/her, and completed the registration of ownership transfer without going through the intention of the title holder on the register under Article 5(6) and (7) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Losses and Compensation for Losses and Compensation for Losses and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the procedures for issuing a confirmation document under each of the above provisions stipulate that the procedures for issuing an application for the issuance of a confirmation document shall be followed by 30-day public notice of the fact of the application for the issuance of the confirmation document and the verification by the head of the Dong or Dong of the location of the relevant land shall be conducted (Article 3(1) and (2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). Furthermore, if a title holder fails to comply with the procedures for the sale of the previous land by deception, it shall not be made by the title holder’s.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of ownership transfer registration under Article 5 of the Special Act.

3. Even if an embankment constructed on an applicable river under the former River Act (amended by Act No. 5893 of Feb. 8, 1999 and enforced from Aug. 9, 199), is installed by a river management agency or a person permitted or entrusted by the river management agency, or is installed by a person other than a river management agency, if the river management agency obtains the consent of the installer in order to manage the embankment as a river appurtenances, the embankment’s site and excluded area shall be owned by the river area as a matter of course pursuant to the provisions of the Act, even if there is no designation disposition by the management agency for the relevant embankment as a river appurtenances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da4051, Nov. 4, 1994; 96Da11785, Oct. 15, 1996; 97Da485, May 16, 1997).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the Busan Regional Land Management Agency established by the defendant from March 1990 to December 1994, which performed the 3rd construction works of the Nakdongdong River", and it can be seen that the part of the land in this case was a bank site and a river area of the Nakdongdong River as the area of the defendant's river. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the ownership of the land in this case, which was owned by the river management agency or the river management agency established on the land in this case and the river management agency established on the land in this case from March 1990 to December 1994, and the land in this case was owned by the river management agency, and the land in this case was owned by the defendant for the purpose of managing it as a river appurtenances (the address 1 omitted) and the land in this case, which was owned by the defendant's land in this case without the consent of the defendant's ownership of the river in this case.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the case.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)