The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the provisions of Articles 5, 6, and 9 of the former Land Development Promotion Act, the Do Governor may investigate the land to be reclaimed and determine the land to be reclaimed, and the Do Governor may grant permission for the land to be reclaimed in accordance with the provisions of the Cabinet Ordinance for the State-owned land determined and publicly announced as the land to be reclaimed. Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Article 12 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1607 of Oct. 23, 1963), the term "land actually used by a person who has obtained permission for the use of state-owned land or for which the specific use plan has been determined and determined" means that the land actually used by a person who has obtained permission for the use of state-owned land or for whom the specific use plan has been determined and determined and determined as the land to be the land to be reclaimed or the lessee actually used the land to be used in accordance with the purpose of the lending contract or the land to be used or commenced by the State for the use of a river according to the terms and conditions of the contract.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the land of this case is nothing more than 30,00 river sites within the 30,000 square village, including the land of this case, and there was a determination of land planned to be reclaimed by the Chungcheong branch under the former Land Reclamation Promotion Act as of April 30, 1963, and Non-party 1 obtained permission to reclaim the land from the Chungcheong branch on July 18 of the same year, but the above land was already subject to the permission to occupy and use the land as of November 17, 1961, before Non-party 2 obtained permission to develop the land of this case from the National Land Construction Agency for the purpose of creation of a river structure and the land of this case for the purpose of creation of farmland, and there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above land scheduled to be reclaimed under Article 12 subparag. 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Reclamation Promotion Act, and the land of this case is no longer subject to the cancellation of permission to occupy and use the above land.

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.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)