On the first ground for appeal

With respect to land which is naturally nationalized as a river area due to the enforcement of the River Act as amended by Act No. 2292 of January 19, 1971, the appraisal to calculate the amount of compensation for losses pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda of the River Act (Act No. 3782 of December 31, 1984) shall be made in accordance with Article 10 of the Regulations on the Compensation for Land incorporated into a River (Act No. 11919 of June 12, 1986; hereinafter referred to as the "Compensation Regulations"), the price at the time of appraisal shall be based on the price at the time of appraisal, but the land category, conditions of use, restrictions under public law, and actual conditions of use at the time of inclusion shall be considered as assessment, and the reason is that the above supplementary provisions aim at compensating for private rights extinguished due to the enforcement of the River Act, so it shall not be considered that the compensation system should be made based on the principle of unjust ownership at the time of the inclusion into the river area.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below is just in calculating the compensation amount of the land of this case incorporated into a non-execution of the River Act, taking into account the land category, use condition and restrictions under the public law at the time of incorporation, and it is reasonable to take into account the appraisal results. However, although the land of this case was incorporated into a river area only after the implementation of the River Act, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the compensation amount of the land of this case, since the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the compensation amount of the land of this case, since it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the compensation amount of the land of this case, since it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle, since the appraisal report prepared by the appraiser of the first instance court, which was conducted by the court below, merely listed the "river area" as one of the limited conditions under the public law in the process of calculating the land price of this case.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the records, evidence Nos. 1 and 2, which the plaintiff asserted as the appraisal report prepared and submitted by the defendant, can be acknowledged as the appraisal report that the head of Gangseo-gu Office under the defendant's jurisdiction requests two appraisal agencies for the purpose of accepting a group of lands to be incorporated into the site for the execution of the construction of the Maew reservoir facility, which is an urban planning project, in a situation where it is unclear whether the neighboring land including the land in this case is land within the river area. Since the appraisal price stated in such appraisal report differs from the appraisal stipulated in Article 10 of the Compensation Regulations, the appraisal price is different from the appraisal stipulated in Article 10 of the Compensation Regulations, so the appraisal price cannot be deemed as the calculation data of the compensation amount in this case. In this regard, the court below's failure to obtain evidence Nos. 1 and 2 is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the legitimate evaluation of related laws

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)