Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorneys Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee)

Republic of Korea and one other (Law Firm Jina, Attorneys male Ro-moo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

December 17, 2003

Seoul District Court Decision 2002Gahap75594 Delivered on May 20, 2003

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. If the person who has sold the Gyeonggi-gun, it is confirmed that the 5/9 share of the compensation claim due to the nationalization of the area of 4,986 square meters in rivers (tax number omitted) is against the plaintiff 1, and that the 2/9 share of the 2/9 share is against the plaintiff 2

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 5-1 through 3, Gap evidence 6-1 through 3, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 10-1 and 2, and each fact inquiry result to the head of the Seoul Regional Construction and Management Administration of the Party, and each fact inquiry result to the head of the Seoul Regional Construction and Management Administration of the Party.

A. In the case of Gyeonggi-gun, the Plaintiff 1, 200m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) was jointly inherited on July 13, 1921, and the Plaintiff 3 and Plaintiff 2, a family heir, were jointly inherited on July 30, 1964, and the Plaintiffs died on August 28, 1991, and died on August 28, 1921, and thus, the Plaintiffs jointly inherited the shares of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased on December 30, 1925, and the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status of the deceased status.

B. The instant land was incorporated into a river area under Article 2(1)2(a) of the River Act in accordance with the Han River Maintenance Master Plan as amended and announced by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on July 5, 1990, and was not yet registered at the time of incorporation. The registration of preservation of ownership was made as owned by the State on July 27, 1996.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs lost ownership of the land of this case due to the river area under Article 2 (1) of the River Act, and thus the claim for compensation was made under Article 74 (2) of the River Act. The period of the extinctive prescription expires. On December 28, 1999, the plaintiffs asserted that the extinctive prescription period was extended on December 31, 2002 by the "Act No. 3782" under Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into a river area, for which the extinctive prescription period of the claim for compensation expires under Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into a River (hereinafter "the Special Measures for this case"). Accordingly, the defendants asserted that they are liable to pay compensation for losses due to the expiration of the river area of this case. Accordingly, the defendants cannot accept their claim because the land of this case is not the land subject to the Special Measures for the Compensation for Loss under the Act. In particular, they asserted that the defendant Republic of Korea is not liable for compensation under the Special Measures

3. Determination

A. Determination on the scope of application of the special measures of this case

(1) The history of the statute on nationalization of and compensation for rivers

(A) The former River Act (Law No. 892 on December 30, 1961)

Article 4 of the former River Act provides that "a river shall belong to the State," and Article 12 of the same Act provides that "the management agency shall give public notice of the determination of a river area as prescribed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation and allow the public to peruse its drawings." Meanwhile, Article 62 (1) of the former River Act provides that "if a person suffers a loss due to the disposal or restriction under Articles 12, 13, 34 and 35 of the same Act, or if a person suffers a loss due to a disposal or restriction under Articles 12, 13, 34 and 35 of the same Act, or if a person suffers a loss, due to a disposal or construction work conducted by the Administrator of the National Land Construction Agency, that a disposal or construction work conducted by the competent local government must compensate him for such loss."

(B) The New River Act (Law No. 2292 delivered on January 19, 1971)

(a) The term “river area” under Article 2(1)2 of the River Act as amended in 1971 (amended in January 20, 1971) means the area of the land (excluding the land temporarily showing its situation due to a flood or other abnormal natural phenomenon), the area of the land which is the site of the river appurtenances, and (c) the area of the land which is the site of the river appurtenances (referring to the land on the side of the river), or the area of the land similar thereto designated by the management agency or the area of the land similar thereto under Article 2(1)2 of the same Act; and (a) the compensation provisions under the former part of Article 74 through the former part of Article 2(1)2 (c) of the same Act are not separately provided for only the case where the river area was designated under the former part of Article 2(1)2(c) of the same Act.

(C) The amended River Act (Law No. 3782, Dec. 31, 1984)

Article 74 (2) of the River Act amended in 1984 newly established the provision that "where land falls under Article 2 (1) 2 (a), and becomes a new river area, the management agency of the river area which includes such land shall be compensated." Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the River Act newly established the provision that "in order to solve the problem where the compensation provisions for losses under the new River Act in 1971 are not properly provided, the land becomes a river area falling under Article 2 (1) 2 (a) of this Act before this Act enters into force, or the land which was excluded from the implementation of the River Act promulgated on January 19, 1971 becomes a State-owned property, the management agency shall compensate for the loss." Article 71 of the Budget and Accounts Act and Article 53 of the Local Finance Act with respect to the extinctive prescription of the above claim for compensation, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim compensation expires after the expiration of the period under Article 2 (2) of the Addenda of the River Act for 1950 years after the expiration of 19.3 years after the amendment.

(D) The Special Measures Act

However, despite the expiration of the extinctive prescription as above, multiple civil petitions have not yet been filed since the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of a claim for compensation at the end of 1990, the Act on Special Measures was enacted by Act No. 6065 of Dec. 28, 199, and Article 2 of the Act provides, “If a claim for compensation is extinguished due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period under Article 2 of the Addenda of the Act (Act No. 3782), among cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do governor shall compensate for its losses.” Article 2(1)2 of the Act provides, “Where a parcel of land becomes a river area under Article 2(1)2 (a) of the River Act before the enforcement date of the amended Act (Act No. 2292),” Article 2 provides, “Where a piece of land becomes a river area under Article 2(1)2(1)2 of the Act before the enforcement date of the amended Act (Act No. 3782, the amended Act). 293”

(2) Scope of application of the Special Measures Act

In light of the history of the provisions regarding river area and compensation for loss in the River Act mentioned above, the contents and legislative intent of Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended River Act in 1984, and the legislative intent and text of the Act on Special Measures in this case, land subject to compensation for loss under the Act on Special Measures in this case shall be deemed to fall under Article 2 (1) 2 (a) of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292) where land becomes a river area before January 20, 1971 as it fell under Article 2 (1) 2 (a) of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292), and where a river area becomes a river area before the enforcement date of the amended River Act in 1984, and where land excluded before the enforcement date of the amended River Act becomes a state-owned land.

B. Determination as to whether the land of this case is subject to the Act on the Special Measures of this case

The legal system of the river area of the former River Act and the former River Act, unlike the system of determination and public notice of the river area of the former River Act, in cases where the land of this case falls under the requirements of the river area under the conditions of the former River Act, it loses private rights. Thus, in order to be subject to the Act on the Special Measures of this case, the land of this case should be state-owned within the period prescribed by the Act on the Special Measures of this case, and the land located within the area excluded from the enforcement of the former River Act should be subject to the Act on the Special Measures of this case. According to the fact-finding with the Seoul Regional Construction and Management of the Party, the fact-finding with the Seoul Regional Construction and Management of the District Court had been located outside the river area in the cadastral map prepared in the year 1978 after the enforcement date of the new River Act, but it can be recognized that the land of this case was located inside the river area after the enforcement date of the amended River Act, but this fact alone does not have any other evidence to acknowledge the land of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in this case are all dismissed due to the lack of grounds, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and all appeals of the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Ho-won (Presiding Judge)