[손실보상금청구][집38(4)특,364;공1991.2.15.(890),645]
Whether a claim for compensation for losses is filed as an administrative litigation due to the fact that the land in the exclusion area is owned by the State (negative)
The claim for compensation for losses arising under Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the River Act (amended by December 31, 1984) due to the land located within the exclusion area is owned by the State, and it is reasonable to regard the cause of the right as a private right, not an administrative disposition, as the legal provision, and its nature as a private right. As such, the lawsuit for the claim for compensation for losses in this case is unlawful
Articles 2 and 1 and 5 of the Addenda of the River Act (No. 31, 1984) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended Rivers Act (Act No. 3782), Articles 1 and 5 of the Regulations on the Compensation for Land Incorporated into River (Presidential Decree No. 11919, Jun. 12, 198
Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Kim Jong-jin
Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu3104 delivered on June 7, 1990
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.
According to Article 2 of the Addenda of the River Act which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 3782 of Jun. 12, 1986, the court below held that the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for losses because the real estate of this case was located in the south of Han River basin and owned by the plaintiffs, but it became state-owned because it was incorporated into Han River basin before December 31, 1984, and the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for losses under Article 2 of the Addenda of the River Act which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 11919 of Jun. 12, 1986 and Article 5 of the Addenda of the River Act which was enacted by Presidential Decree No. 11919 of the same Act, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim for compensation for losses under the above provision of Article 6 of the Administrative Litigation Act, since the plaintiff's claim for compensation for losses under the legal relations of this case was not an administrative agency for which the plaintiff would be entitled to compensation for losses under the above provision of the Act, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for compensation for losses under public law.
In light of relevant evidence and records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the claim for compensation of losses of this case, which is a right under public law, such as the theory of lawsuit in the court below
Therefore, all appeals are 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-sung (Presiding Justice)