1. The judgment of the court below

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) based on the evidence adopted by the Plaintiff, designated the Defendant, a local government, as the implementer of the project for the creation of the instant 4-site residential complex (hereinafter “instant project”); and (b) recognized the implementation plan for the instant project as applied by the Defendant on May 9, 190; (c) completed the instant project on December 31, 200; (d) completed the instant 1,39,426 square meters in the instant project area (hereinafter “one-stage area”); and (e) filed an application for the completion of the construction of the instant 1-stage area on the instant 4-site area to the Plaintiff on December 1, 1989, on the ground that the instant 5-site area was located in the area of the instant 5-site area and the instant 2-site area, which was located in the area of the instant 1-site area and the area of the instant 2-site area that was located in the 1-site area.

B. Furthermore, the court below rejected the Defendant’s claim that, upon the Defendant’s application for the completion of the instant project, the Plaintiff’s implementation of the first phase completion authorization of the completion of the instant project, it did not constitute an unlawful disposal of the Plaintiff’s portion of the reclaimed land to the effect that the Plaintiff’s disposal of the Plaintiff’s portion of the instant reclaimed land did not constitute an unlawful disposal of the Plaintiff’s portion of the following grounds: (a) it was difficult for the Defendant to view the Plaintiff’s unlawful disposal of the Plaintiff’s portion of the reclaimed land to constitute a tort on the following grounds: (b) it was difficult to view the Plaintiff’s unlawful disposal of the Plaintiff’s portion of the reclaimed land as an unlawful disposal of the Plaintiff’s portion of the reclaimed land, based on the following reasoning: (c) the Plaintiff, who was the implementer of the instant project; and (d) the Plaintiff, based on the Defendant’s unlawful disposal of the Plaintiff’s portion of the instant reclaimed land, it did not constitute an unlawful disposal of the Plaintiff’s ownership to the Plaintiff’s third party; and (d) it did not constitute an unlawful disposal of the Plaintiff’s ownership.

2. The judgment of this Court

However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

A. (1) Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Public Waters Management Act (amended by Act No. 6611 of Jan. 14, 2002; hereinafter the same) provides that "the term "public waters" means the sea, beaches, rivers, lakes, ditches, and other waters or waterways used for public purposes, which are owned by the State," and Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the same Act provides that "the term "seashore means the area from the high-water line to the area registered in the cadastral record," and Article 2 of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act provides that "the term "public waters mean the public waters as provided in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Public Waters Management Act; the term "seashore means the public waters as provided in subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Public Waters Management Act; the term "the reclamation means the creation of land by artificially inserting earth, rocks, or other things into public waters (including reclamation)."

(2) Article 21 (1) 19 of the former Industrial Sites and Development Act (amended by Act No. 6406, Jan. 29, 2001; hereinafter the same) provides that "if a project operator of an industrial complex development project has obtained approval of an implementation plan, a reclamation license under Article 9 of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act, authorization of an implementation plan under Article 15 of the same Act, and consultation or approval under Article 38 of the same Act shall be deemed to have been obtained." Article 37 of the former Industrial Sites and Development Act provides that "if a project operator has completed an industrial complex development project, he/she shall obtain authorization of completion of the project without delay, and if the project operator has completed the completion according to the result of the completion inspection, he/she shall obtain authorization of completion, and if the project operator has obtained the authorization of completion, he/she shall be deemed to have received the completion inspection or approval of the project in accordance with the authorization or permission deemed approval of implementation plan."

In addition, Article 36(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Sites and Development Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17288, Jun. 30, 2001; hereinafter the same) upon delegation thereof provides that “A project operator who reclaims public waters shall attach a written application for authorization of completion to be submitted to the authority to approve implementation plans of an industrial complex pursuant to Articles 26 and 38(4) of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act and Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act to the land to be acquired by a project operator and the land, etc. to be reverted to the State or a local government.”

(3) Article 38 of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act provides that “When the State, a local government, or a government-invested institution executes reclamation works, it shall apply for authorization of completion with the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries by determining the category of land without delay, and on the date of obtaining authorization of completion, it shall acquire the ownership of the reclaimed land, but shall not apply to reclaimed land necessary for public or public use, and Article 26(1)1 and 2 of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Meanwhile, Article 26(1) of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act provides that “The State, a local government, or a reclamation licensee acquires the ownership of reclaimed land according to the following classification on the date of obtaining authorization on completion of reclamation works.” The State’s ownership of reclaimed land (excluding beachess included in site for facilities for public use or public facilities newly installed due to the execution of reclamation works among reclaimed beaches) divided into an area equivalent to reclaimed beaches (excluding beachess included in site for facilities for public use or public facilities newly installed due to the execution of reclamation works from among reclaimed beachess) shall acquire ownership, but the location of reclaimed land in collectively partitioned seasides shall be a place other than reclaimed land as determined by the reclamation licensee (No. 2).”

In addition, Article 19 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19080, Sept. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same) upon delegation provides that "any person who intends to obtain authorization of completion shall submit an application for authorization of completion and relevant documents to the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries." Article 38(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the provisions of Article 19 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the authorization of completion of reclamation implemented by the State, etc. pursuant to Article 38(3) of the

B. Since the contents and location of a beach, which is a natural public structure, refers to a space from the high-water line to the area registered in the public cadastral book at any time, it is difficult for the State, the sole authorized administrator, as the only authorized administrator, due to changes in its form and location, to accurately grasp the location and size of the seaside and the reclaimed land while performing the reclamation work, and the seashore was land before the reclamation work, a local government, which wishes to obtain authorization of the reclamation of public waters as an implementer of a reclamation project included in an industrial complex development project, shall be deemed to have the duty to acquire the ownership of the reclaimed land under the Acts and subordinate statutes, by attaching a detailed statement of the reclaimed land, etc., in which the location and category of which should be specified by collective subdivision pursuant to Article 26(1)2, etc. of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act and which should be forfeited to the State through the authorization of the completion of the reclamation work, by submitting an application for the authorization of the completion of the reclamation work.

Therefore, even if a local government reclaims any seaside which is a natural public object managed by the State in violation of the above statutory obligations, it may constitute an illegal authorization for completion of the reclamation works for the country in which the State is in a position to acquire the ownership of the seaside reclaimed land through the authorization of completion of the reclamation works as an authorized administrator and a person who is in a position to acquire the ownership of the seaside reclaimed land by the completion of the reclamation works, by making an application for an illegal authorization for completion of the reclamation of the reclaimed public waters to vest in the whole ownership of the reclaimed public waters, by specifying the location and land category by collectively partitioninging them pursuant to Article 26(1)2 of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act, and omitting the contents of the reclaimed public waters that should revert to the State. The same applies where the State has the status of the authorized owner at the same time.

C. Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above act of the defendant's application for authorization of completion constitutes a tort against the plaintiff, and judged that the plaintiff's claim for damages based on the plaintiff's illegal act is groundless. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the former Public Waters Management Act, seaside reclaimed land, and illegal act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The

3. Conclusion

In a case where a plaintiff filed an appeal against a judgment of an appellate court which has dismissed multiple selective joined claims, the court of final appeal shall reverse the original judgment in its entirety, if the court of final appeal deems that the final appeal against some selective claims is well-grounded (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Da95390, Jan. 19, 2012). Without determining the remaining grounds of final appeal, the judgment of the court below that dismissed all of the claims of this case selectively joined claims, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)