Whether a river towed to Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Real Estate Speculation includes a state-owned river under Article 3 of the River Act.

In the case of rivers towed by the land category which provides for the scope of land in Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Real Estate Speculative Measures, the rivers which are the public objects of the state, the creation of private rights is prohibited by Article 3 of the River Act shall not be included.

Article 9 of the Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate Speculation (Abolition) and Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate Speculation (Abolition)

Korea Water Resources Development Corporation

Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 71Gu286 delivered on May 8, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation performer;

Despite the land category in the public register at the time the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the reclaimed land in this case, there was no error in the lower court’s revocation of the Defendant’s disposition on the premise that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the reclaimed land was not a river prior to reclamation but a housing site created by reclamation. The Defendant appears to be the ground for applying the land category at the time of acquisition under Article 9(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate Speculative Measures, but it cannot be said that this is the ground for appeal. In addition, the Defendant asserted that the disposition in this case is legitimate on the ground that a river is located within the land category of a river under Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. However, according to Article 3 of the River Act, a river is a state-owned river and its private right cannot be established. Thus, it cannot be accepted as a premise that Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate, which is a part of the State-owned river, as well as that it can be applied under the premise that the Plaintiff’s right to manage the above river.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Young-young (Presiding Justice)