(a) Designation of shipbuilding, river age (No. 2 of January 22, 1927) and the former River Act (No. 1475 of December 5, 1963) and extinction of private rights;

(b) Approval of river areas by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation under the former River Act;

A. In order to be recognized as a river subject to the Joseon River Decree (Ordinance No. 2 of January 22, 1927), a river area shall be publicly notified to a river designated by the management agency, and a procedure shall be taken to notify the owners of land, buildings, or their managers within the relevant area. Thus, the designation of a river area based on the proviso of Article 12 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 892 of Dec. 27, 1961) and Article 8-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Ordinance No. 1475 of Dec. 16, 1963), if the Minister of Construction and Transportation designated as a river area based on the aforementioned proviso of Article 12 of the former River Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1475 of Dec. 27, 1963) and Article 8-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the River Act, the designation of a river area as a whole shall be deemed to be a river area under Article 1753 of the same Act.

B. The Minister of Construction and Transportation’s recognition and public notice of a river area is a provisional measure until the relevant drawings relating to the determination of a river area under the proviso of Article 12 of the former River Act (Act No. 1475 of Dec. 5, 1963) are maintained, and the recognized area is within the standard scope of a river area under Article 8-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Ordinance No. 1753 of Dec. 16, 1963), if the area falls within the standard scope of a river area under the recognition of a river area under Article 8-2 of the same Act, the said public notice shall not affect the validity of a river area

A. Article 1 of the Joseon River Decree (Ordinance No. 2 of January 22, 1927), Article 3 of the former River Act (Act No. 1475 of December 5, 1963), and Article 8-2 of the former River Act (Ordinance No. 1753 of December 16, 1963)

B. Supreme Court Decision 77Da432 delivered on September 28, 1977

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Attorneys Han-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na513 delivered on November 3, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, if the land was originally cultivated, but the land of this case was spreaded into a Han River area in 1925 at the time of flood, and if the land of this case was designated as a river on February 23, 194. The land of this case was located within the Han River basin from the Han River basin and was located within the 19th anniversary of the construction of the Han River basin in 197, and was located within the 6th anniversary of the construction of the Han River basin in 197. The land of this case was located within the 19th anniversary of the construction of the Han River basin in 1925. The land of this case was located within the 19th anniversary of the construction of the Han River basin in 2nd of the construction of the Han River basin and the 19th anniversary of the construction of the Han River basin in 2nd of the construction of the Han River basin in 365 to the 36th of the construction of the Han River basin.

In order to be recognized as a river subject to the old Decree of the River Act (Ordinance No. 2, Jan. 22, 1927), the management agency shall publicly notify a river area with respect to the river designated by the management agency, and shall take procedures to notify the owners of land and buildings within the relevant area or its managers, etc., as stated in the theory of lawsuit. However, as determined by the court of first instance, if the court of first instance recognized that the land in this case was a river as referred to in Article 1 of the said Decree and was designated as a river on February 23, 194 and thereafter, the Minister of Construction and Transportation had designated it as a river on December 27, 1961, and thereafter, the designation and public notice of the river area under the proviso of Article 12 of the former River Act (amended by Law No. 892, Dec. 5, 1963) and Article 17-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the River Act (amended by Ordinance No. 1753, Dec. 16, 1963) is justified in its designation and public notice. 194.

Although the management agency should specify the land incorporated into a river in accordance with the criteria for the recognition of a river area in the determination of a river area, Article 897 of the Construction Sub-Announcement No. 897 of Jun. 1, 1964, which was designated and announced as a river area on the land of this case, does not specifically specify the scope of the area, and thus, it cannot be deemed a public announcement of the designation of a river area under the River Act. However, the recognition and public announcement of a river area of the above Minister of Construction and Transportation is a provisional measure until the relevant drawings related to the determination of a river area under the proviso of Article 12 of the former River Act are maintained, since this area belongs to the scope of the standard for the recognition of a river area under Article 8-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the public announcement of the recognition shall not affect the validity of a river area only because there is no specific indication on the relevant lot number or area (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da

The precedent that points out the theory of lawsuit is different from the case of this case, and it is not appropriate. The argument is groundless.

In addition, the appeal on the premise that the water level table stated in Nos. 6-2 (one year frequency table by Han River Point) and Nos. 7-2 (Korean River Book Map) is the Han River Water Level phenomenon before the construction of the Gu of this case, or the land of this case is excluded from the designation of river area because it falls under “land temporarily indicating its situation due to flood or other natural phenomena” excluded from the area of river pursuant to the proviso of Article 8-2(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the River Act (Ordinance No. 1753 of December 16, 1963), the court below did not recognize the judgment of the court below by misunderstanding the purport of the judgment of the court below or on the premise of facts different from the facts recognized by the court below.

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 Yoon Ma-tae (Presiding Justice)