[공유수면점·사용료부과처분취소][공1996.1.15.(2),262]
Whether the public waters have the nature as a legal public waters in case where part of the public waters was actually reclaimed and siteed.
Public waters are so-called natural public waters, which are directly offered for public use, so even if part of public waters were actually reclaimed and siteized, they still have the nature of public waters as long as the state does not abolish public waters as public waters.
Articles 2 and 7 of the Public Waters Management Act
Supreme Court Decision 67Da40 Decided March 28, 1967 Supreme Court Decision 72Da841 Decided August 22, 1972
Korea Highway Corporation (Attorney Kim Shin-hwan, Counsel for defendant)
Masan-si Head of the Gu (Attorney Seo-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Busan High Court Decision 94Gu5632 delivered on June 23, 1995
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The term "public waters" means the water flow or water surface of state-owned state-owned water or water surface used for the sea, river, or any other public purpose that does not apply or apply mutatis mutandis to river-related Acts and subordinate statutes (Article 2 of the Public Waters Management Act). Since such public waters are so-called natural objects that they are directly provided for use by the public (Article 2 of the Public Waters Management Act), such public waters are still in the nature of public waters as long as the state does not abolish them as public waters even if part of the public waters were actually reclaimed and made into a site, so long as they do not abolish them as public waters (Article 67Da40, March 28, 1967; Supreme Court Decision 72Da841, August 22, 197
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that, based on macroficial evidence, the above disposal of 1,365 square meters and 146 square meters and 864 square meters of 864 square meters of Masan-dong 864 (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") were used as the site for the building of the road management office located in the Plaintiff Gyeongnam-do branch office from November 29, 1973, and that the registration of ownership was not made in the name of each state (construction division) on September 5, 1986 and April 20, 197, and there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the construction of the highway of this case on June 24, 1992, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the construction of the highway of this case on the ground that the land category was changed to the site of this case on January 17, 1993, the Defendant did not lawfully impose the ownership transfer registration on the Plaintiff's land under the name of this case 96.
Ultimately, all arguments are merely criticizeing the judgment of the court below from an independent view, and cannot be accepted.
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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)