Korea Buddhist Cho Jae-sung (Law Firm Shin, Attorney Kim Jong-nam, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gyeonggi-do (Attorney Lee-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 19, 2010

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,423,490,000 won with 20% interest per annum from April 15, 2010 to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. In around 1912, 1912, Cywing company, who had a domicile in Samsung-ri, the Gyeonggi-gun, was under the circumstances of Geumju-ri 83 Simle-ri 8,050 (hereinafter “the land before division”).

B. Since then, the cadastral records of the previous land were destroyed to 6.25 square meters, and cadastral records were restored, the area was 83-2 square meters (23 square meters; hereinafter referred to as “one land”) prior to 83-3,934 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi-gun, Sejong-gun, and the area was 83-3 square meters prior to the said 83-3 square meters prior to the said 83-3 square meters prior to the said 83-3 square meters prior to the said 83-15 river, 973 square meters prior to the said 83-15 square meters prior to the said 83-3 square meters prior to the said 83-3 square meters prior to the said 83-3 square meters prior to the said 83-3 square meters prior to the said 18-3 square meters prior to the said 83-12 square meters prior to the said 198-3 square meters prior to the said 83-19-31 square meters prior to the said 83-4 (hereinafter referred to as “the said 1-53-4.”).

C. The Republic of Korea completed the registration of initial ownership relating to the land Nos. 1 through 7 on June 4, 1996 (hereinafter “instant land”).

D. Of the instant lands, the land Nos. 2 to 6 is indicated as the river area of Yungcheon River Maintenance Master Plan (Supplementary), which is a national river on the river ledger, in December 199, and the land Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 is currently constructed by the state in 1983, and the land Nos. 3 and 6 is excluded from the above bank, and the land No. 7 is excluded from the above bank and the reservoir.

E. The name and the section was designated by the name and the section of the river under Article 2 of the River Act, No. 1255 of the Cabinet Order No. 1255 of Apr. 1, 1963, which is a national river. At the time, the land in this case was also included in the river section.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 10, 14, 15, Eul 1 (including each number), the appraiser's appraisal result, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Whether the identity of the situation titleholder and the plaintiff is identical

In full view of Gap evidence No. 11-1, 2, and 3's overall purport of the pleading, the fact that Samsung-ri, a situation holder's address, is recognized as identical to the plaintiff Samsung-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, which is the present address of the plaintiff, is recognized. Thus, the plaintiff is a situation holder of the land before division.

(b) Whether compensation is subject to the Act on Special Measures for Compensation for Land Incorporated into Rivers;

(1) As seen earlier, all of the instant land is a reservoir, bank, or excluded area, and is currently a river area under the River Act.

Furthermore, as to the time of incorporation, the River Act was enacted by Act No. 982 on December 30, 1961, and until the Act No. 2292 on July 20, 1971 enters into force, the management agency has determined and publicly announced a river area as a river area, and the river area was automatically incorporated into a river area due to the enforcement of the Act No. 2292, and the river area was changed into a statutory system that makes banks, exclusion areas, etc. automatically incorporated into a river area. Of the land in this case, the river area was included in the "case of the river area approval of the river area managed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation" determined and publicly announced by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 897 of Jun. 1, 1964, which was the time when the river area was determined and publicly announced by the Minister of Construction and Transportation. Thus, among the land in this case, the river area was incorporated into a river area of 198,000.

According to Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into Rivers, Article 2 subparag. 3 of the said Act provides that land excluded from the river area shall be State-owned if land located on the side of the river from the bank becomes State-owned. Article 2(1) and Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the said Act, enacted by Act No. 3782 of Dec. 31, 1984, which was enacted on Jan. 19, 1971, which was excluded from the enforcement of Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971, the management agency shall compensate for the loss. The above provision should be applied to land incorporated into a river area by the determination and public notice of the management agency at the time the river area was adopted prior to the enforcement of the Act No. 2292, the river area was all subject to compensation, while Article 2(3) of the Act No. 2982, Dec. 19, 2019>

(c) Justifiable compensation;

The land No. 1 is 23 square meters, 2,54 square meters, 44 square meters, 59 square meters for land 4, 570 square meters for land 50 square meters, each bank, 3 land 1,153 square meters, 6 land 1,657 square meters, 7 land 6,982 square meters or storage areas, and the appraisal result of the appraiser [the appraiser shall select 427-2, 2,417 square meters prior to Sejong-si, the current land use of which is a comparative standard site based on the current land use situation, and in particular, 00 square meters, 1,423, 490, 650 square meters for land x 100,000 won x 200,000 won x 10,000 won x 200,000 won x 2010,2305 square meters x 205,205 square meters x 20105,2040

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,423,490,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from April 15, 2010 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the application for amendment of the claim of this case, as the plaintiff seeks.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

[Attachment]

Judges Choi Jae-han (Presiding Judge)