[2] Where a landowner or person concerned suffers a loss due to a river work executed by a non-management authority pursuant to Article 30 of the former River Act (=the subject of rights to which the non-management authority belongs)

[2] It is reasonable to interpret that losses suffered by a land owner or person concerned due to a river work implemented by a non-management authority should not be compensated by the rights holder who belongs to the management authority which permitted the construction work, and that the rights holder, a non-management authority, should compensate for such losses.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

In full view of the evidence cited in the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the part of 33m2 in the attached drawings of the court below among the area of 473m2 in Gwangju City ( Address 1 omitted) and the part of 521m2 in the area of 192m2 in 20m2 is located between dry field and the 3m20m2 in the area of 192m2 in the 200m2 and that if flood has changed each year, the land was already included in the river area around April 1, 1963 in the area of the 200m2 in the area of 3m2 in accordance with the provisions of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 6656, Feb. 4, 202; hereinafter referred to as the "River Act") was included in the area of 2000m2 in the area of the river, but there was no ground for extinctive prescription as to the land prior to the amendment of the River Act No. 1971.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the above fact-finding of the court below, and there is no error of law by violating the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. As to the assertion against the rules of evidence

In full view of the evidence cited in the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the fact that the Plaintiff lost its ownership on the ground that the Gwangju City market was exempt from the category of Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the River Act, which caused the same drawing among the area of 440 square meters in the section of drawings attached to the judgment of the court below among the area of 473 square meters owned by the Plaintiff ( Address 1 omitted), 216 square meters in the area of 192 square meters in the area of 192 square meters in the ( Address 1 omitted), which is a state-owned river, due to the permission of the head of the Seoul Regional Construction and Management Administration, under Article 30 of the River Act.

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, this fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle as to the non-management authority’s liability for damages

A person who suffers loss due to river work implemented by an administrative agency, which is a non-management authority, with permission for river work under Article 30 of the River Act shall be entitled to claim compensation for loss by applying Article 74 (2) of the same Act mutatis mutandis.

Meanwhile, Article 76(1) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002) provides that Article 76(2) of the same Act provides that an administrative agency, the non-management authority of which has obtained permission for river works, may expropriate or use land or things attached to the land and rights other than ownership of the land necessary for river works, and Article 76(2) of the same Act provides that Article 45(1) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 200) shall apply mutatis mutandis to compensation for losses.

In full view of the above provisions, it is reasonable to interpret that the subject of rights belonging to the management agency which permitted the construction work is not compensation but the subject of rights belonging to the management agency which is the non-management agency which performs the construction work, such as this case.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below is just in holding that the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the loss of land ownership due to the repair work of this case implemented by the Gwangju City with the permission of the head of the Seoul Regional Construction and Management Administration, which is a state-owned river management office under Article 30 of the River Act, is liable for the compensation of the defendant Gwangju City, a right holder to which the Gwangju City belongs, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the person liable for compensation due to river work by an administrative agency, a non-management office,

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)