[공유수면매립준공인가처분취소][하집1991(1),450]
(a) Whether statutory grounds exist for reserving the part of public waters with the nature as a state after the reclamation work under the former Public Waters Reclamation Act;
(b) The case holding that a disposition for authorization for completion which has reserved this part on state-owned basis is lawful, since the parts created with a fishing place, resort, reservoir, etc. after reclamation works do not lose the nature of public waters;
A. According to Article 14 of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Act No. 3901 of Dec. 31, 1986) and Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12257 of Oct. 13, 1987), land arising from reclamation works, other than roads, bank protections, etc., among reclaimed land, shall be designated as a license condition in advance to the extent necessary pursuant to the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes, so that it may be excluded from the subject of private right. However, since this applies to the case where the pertinent land is a reclaimed land created only due to reclamation works, there is no legal basis for reserving the part having the nature of public waters as a state-owned land even after the completion of reclamation works.
B. Even if a reclamation licensee installs a tide embankment on the public waters where the sea water has broken down from the sea water to the sea and where the sea water has come to the tideland, and if the part created by a fishing place, a resort yard, a reservoir, a reservoir, etc. is prevented from the inflow of sea water due to the above tide embankment and artificially acquired and drained by drainage facilities, the authorization for completion of construction which has reserved this part to the state-owned property is legitimate, unless it has lost its nature as public waters in light of the water size, water storage condition, the production process, etc.
Article 14 of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Act No. 3901 of Dec. 31, 1986), Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12257 of Oct. 13, 1987)
Integrified Development Corporation
Seoul Regional Construction Administration
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The authorization of completion issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on November 2, 1989 shall be revoked.
갑 제1 내지 9호증, 갑 제13호증의 1 내지 3, 을 제1호증, 을 제2호증의 1 내지 3, 을 제4호증의 1, 2, 을 제6호증, 을 제7, 8호증의 각 1, 2의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 1975.2.17. 건설부장관으로부터 관광유원지 조성을 목적으로 경기 옹진군 영종면 중산리 1193의2 지선공유수면에 대하여 총매립면적 433,545평(그 후 1976.3.2.에 매립면적이 418,062평으로 변경되었다)의 매립면허를 받은 후 피고로부터 1976.6.7. 동 공유수면 매립공사에 관한 실시계획인가를 받아 같은 해 11.10. 매립공사에 착수한 후 수차에 걸쳐 준공기한연장, 매립면허의 실효와 회복 등을 거듭한 끝에 1981.9.경 총매립예정지 중 어른수영장(별지도면 ②표시부분)과 어린이수영장(별지도면 ①표시부분)을 포함한 제1공구 308,877㎡ 에 대한 공사를 완료하고 같은 달 28.자로 피고에게 그 부분 매립준공인가신청을 하자 피고는 같은 해 12.9.자로 그중 제방구거, 도로등 4필지 합계 33,682㎡를 국유지로 유보하고 그 나머지 위 수영장 등 275,195㎡ 에 대한 공유수면매립준공인가처분을하여 원고의 소유로 귀속시킨 사실, 그 후 원고가 계속하여 위 매립면허구역 중 나머지 구역인 제2, 3공구에 대한 매립공사를 추진하여 총매립면적 1,098,672㎡ 에 대한 매립공사를 마치고 1983.6.30.자로 피고에게 매립공사준공인가신청을 하자 피고는 같은 해 9.16.자로 매립으로 생성된 도로, 구거, 제방 등을 국유지로 유보하는 외에도 낚시터(별지도면 ④표시부분), 보트장(별지도면 ③표시부분), 저수지(별지도면 ⑤표시부분) 등은 매립 후에도 수면으로 남는 부분에 해당한다하여 면허조건 제6항 (아)호에 의거, 국유지로 유보함과 아울러 제1공구에 대한 매립준공인가시 수면으로 남는 수영장 부분을 매립지로 보아 원고의 소유로 준공인가하였음은 잘못이라하여 그 대토명목으로 위 2, 3공구 매립지 중 경기 옹진군 영종면 운북리 1257 유원지 144,092㎡ 중 141,463㎡ (별지도면 ⑥표시부분)를 국유로 유보한 채 그 나머지 매립지 671,985㎡ 에 대하여 원고의 소유로 귀속시키는 준공인가처분을 한 사실, 원고가 위 준공인가처분에 불복하여 당원 84구1115호 로 국유화조치처분취소소송을 제기하자 당원에서는 1986.2.18. 피고가 매립지 중 매립후에도 수면으로 남는 보트장, 낚시터, 저수지 등을 면허조건 제6항 (아)호에 의거하여 국유로 유보한 것은 위법이라는 원고의 주장을 배척하고 다만 제1공구 준공인가시 수영장을 원고의 소유로 귀속시킨 것이 잘못 되었다하여 제2, 3공구 매립지 중 위 운북리 1257 유원지 141,463㎡를 국유로 유보시키는 부관을 붙인 것은 면허조건에 근거가 없어 위법하므로 이를 취소하여야 할 것이나 동 부관만의 취소는 허용되지 않으므로 위 처분 전체를 취소할 수밖에 없다고 하여 위 1983.9.16.자 준공인가처분을 취소하는 판결을 선고하기에 이르렀고, 위 판결은 1987.4.14. 대법원(86누233) 에서 상고기각되어 확정된 사실, 피고는 1988.11.4. 위 판결결과에 따라 위 1983.9.16.자 준공인가처분 가운데서 경기 옹진군 영종면 운북리 1257 유원지 144,092㎡ 중 141,463㎡를 국유로, 나머지 2,629㎡를 원고의 소유로 각 귀속시켰던 것을 위 유원지 전부를 원고의 소유로 귀속시킨다는 내용으로 준공인가변경처분을 한 사실, 원고가 다시 위 준공인가변경처분에 대하여 불복하여 당원 89구3139호 로 준공인가변경처분취소소송을 제기하자 당원에서는 1989.8.25. 위 준공인가변경처분의 대상인 1983.9.16.자 준공인가처분이 이미 위 대법원 판결로써 확정된 당원 84구1115호 판결 에 의하여 취소되어 그 효력이 소멸되었으므로 1988.11.4.자 준공인가변경처분은 효력이 소멸되어 존재하지 않고 있는 행정처분을 변경한 것으로서 당연무효이므로 이를 취소한다는 판결이 선고되고 그 시경 확정된 사실, 이에 피고는 다시 1989.11.2. 위 제2, 3공구의 총매립면적 1,098,627㎡ 에 대하여 매립으로 인하여 생성된 도로, 구거, 제방 등 124,695㎡를 국유지로 유보하는 외에도 경기 옹진군 영종면 중산리 1852(낚시터 ④표시부분), 1853(보트장, ③표시부분), 1854(저수지, ⑤표시부분) 각 유원지 합계 160,484㎡ (이하, 이사건 유원지라 한다)를 국유로 유보한 채 그나머지 매립지 813,448㎡에 대하여 원고의 소유로 귀속시키는 준공인가처분(이하, 이사건 처분이라 한다)을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.
The Plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case was unlawful in violation of Article 14 of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Act No. 3901 of Dec. 31, 1986; hereinafter the same) and the content and purpose of the reclamation license of this case. In other words, Article 14 of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Act No. 14 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act), which applies to this case, shall acquire the ownership of reclaimed land on the date of obtaining authorization of completion, but shall not be subject to the exception of reclaimed land necessary for public or public use. Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20 of the same Act) provides that the Plaintiff’s disposal of reclaimed land under the provisions of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act for the purpose of this case’s reclamation license’s entry of the part of the reclaimed land into the above public waters for the purpose of this case’s reclamation license’s entry into the public waters reclamation license’s entry into the public waters reclamation license’s entry into the public waters’s entry into force.
Second, Article 6 (8) (h) of the reclamation license provision, which is the basis for which the Defendant reserved the instant amusement park as a state-owned property, is not only without any legal grounds, but also not directly and indirectly violating the laws and regulations, and also violates the principle of proportionality and equality, as well as the principle of non-performance that the father should be within the necessary scope in light of the purpose of the pertinent administrative act. The content of the provision is nothing more than reflected in the preparation of the application for the authorization of the implementation plan and it is invalid because it is contrary to the above reclamation license provision (2) and (14). Thus, the instant disposition based on the above license provision is also invalid.
Third, the reclamation of public waters refers to the reclamation or reclamation of public waters such as rivers and sea according to the procedure under the Public Waters Reclamation Act. The reclamation of public waters is conducted by reclaiming public waters in accordance with the implementation plan for reclamation works, and the reclamation of public waters is conducted by losing the public waters, and the surface part of the public waters is not the public waters, but the surface part of the public waters, even if there is a part which is the surface of the water by taking over seawater or seawater according to the purpose of reclamation after the reclamation, which is not the public waters. In this case, the reclamation of public waters is conducted by reclaiming the part which is necessary for taking over in order to utilize it as facilities such as the nitter and fishing place, and the part which is 6.5 meters above the table and 8.5 meters above the table and the part which was filled with the above table and 6.5 meters below the surface part of the public waters surface, so this is not the public waters reclamation works under the Public Waters Reclamation Act, but the part of the public waters surface in this case is considered the part remaining after the Defendant's disposal.
(1) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the following grounds: (1) the Plaintiff’s construction of the above 4-year period of reclamation permit was 10 square meters for the purpose of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act; (2) the Defendant’s construction of the 1-year period of reclamation permit and the 1-year period of reclamation permit under the 6-year period of reclamation permit and the 1-year period of reclamation permit and the 5-year period of reclamation permit, and the 1-year period of reclamation permit and the 1-year period of reclamation permit and the 4-year period of reclamation permit and the 5-year period of reclamation permit and the 1-year period of reclamation permit and the 1-year period of reclamation permit and the 1-year period of reclamation permit and the 5-year period of reclamation permit and the 1-year period of reclamation permit and the 1-year period of reclamation permit and the 4-year period of reclamation permit and the 1-year period of reclamation permit and the 1-year period of reclamation permit and the 2-year area of the 1-year period of reclamation permit.
Next, the plaintiff's second argument is that the public waters reclamation license is a discretionary administrative act, and even if there is no legal basis, it is legitimate for the defendant to attach the conditions of reclamation as referred to in Paragraph 6 (h) and Paragraph 6 (h) at the time of completion of reclamation, and the provision that "the area of the water surface after completion of reclamation works among the tourist facilities shall be excluded from the area of reclamation at the time of completion of reclamation works, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the actual survey goes beyond the necessary scope in light of the purpose of the reclamation license of this case. Further, it cannot be deemed that it merely reflects the matters only in preparation of an application for authorization of implementation plan, and it cannot be deemed that it conflicts with Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 14 of the reclamation license. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless.
Next, in full view of the purport of the oral argument as to the plaintiff's assertion, Gap evidence Nos. 12-3, Eul evidence Nos. 13-1, Eul evidence No. 4-1, Eul evidence No. 8-1, and the purport of the oral argument, the reclamation work of this case 2, 3 are public waters of the average ground height + 7.80m before the plaintiff performed the reclamation work of this case, which are the ground surface of this case, the sea water at full tide. The ground of the above water surface of this case was the ground of the plaintiff's water surface which was created under the premise that the water surface was reduced due to the decline of sea water and the tidal wave water flow into the above part of the time of the reclamation work. Thus, according to the above premise that the plaintiff's water surface was lower than that of the above part of the time of the reclamation work, the plaintiff's construction of the above water surface was excluded from the above part of the reclamation work (the above part of the reclamation site of this case, 30,838m2).
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Shin Sung-ro (Presiding Judge)