(a) Time of determining whether it is impossible to restore the land ownership or not, which is the cause of loss of land ownership;

(b) Measures to be taken by the court to judge whether land has been seized or not;

C. Legal nature of an act of acquiring consultation by a public project executor

(a) The term “land which is the cause of loss of the ownership of land” means the time when the land is cut away from the water of seawater or the applied river under the River Act, and its restoration to the original state is required, such as where the land has become impossible under social norms, and whether it is impossible or not to restore the original state shall be determined as at the time of the fall;

B. In order to determine whether a parcel of land has been spreading, it must be determined by sufficiently comparing the cost to be incurred in restitution, the economic value of the parcel of land to be restored by social norms, by sufficiently comparing the following: (a) the degree of the land has been collapsed into the river by means of field verification or by witness or other various methods of evidence; (b) the location of the area where the land has been collapsed (whether it is the side or the strong side); (c) the degree of examination; and (d) the degree and speed of the examination; and (b) whether it is physically recoverable; and (c) the

(c) An act of a public project operator to acquire land necessary for his/her project by consultation has not yet passed since it was merely a legal act conducted as a private economic entity, and its acquisition by consultation extends only between the parties concerned;

(b)Article 2 of the River Act, Article 211 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 183(b) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 187(c) of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Damage, Article 1 and Article 2 subparag. 4 of

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da31562 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1533), 92Da3793 delivered on April 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1718). Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3871 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong192, 308)

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 93Na10833 delivered on April 6, 1994

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff regarding the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration shall be reversed and remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The remaining final appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed. The costs of final appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

The land ownership loss ground refers to the case where the land has been cut away from the water of sea water or the applied river under the River Act, and its restoration to its original state is required due to the need for excessive expenses, etc. The determination of impossibility of restoration to its original state should be determined at the time of capture (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 78Da1296, Dec. 26, 1978; 91Da31562, Apr. 10, 1992).

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the plaintiff on September 5, 1945, and on February 25, 1993 under the name of the defendant on the ground of consultation acquisition on February 25, 1993, and held that Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7 (which seems to be erroneous in Eul evidence Nos. 1-7) and the testimony of the non-party witness of the court below was the farmland located in the river basin. (1) The land of this case was the farmland located in the river basin, and it was completely changed from around 1950 to the river basin, and it was rejected that the plaintiff's farmland reclamation was completed for the reason that the neighboring residents did not change the ownership of the farmland of this case since 197 years after 197 farmland reclamation, and that the ownership of the farmland of this case was restored to 97 years after 1967 farmland reclamation.

However, according to the records and comparison of the above evidence at the time of the judgment of the court below, the land in this case became the lower part of the Nakdong River, and there was evidence to the extent that the water level was changed to the bridge construction, but evidence that the flood condition continued, such as the passage of rainfalls for more than 10 years as in the judgment of the court below, can not be found at any place, and only it is the fact that the defendant asserted in the defendant's preparatory brief.

However, in order to determine whether a certain land has been spreading, it should be determined by sufficiently comparing the expenses to be incurred in restitution, the economic value from restitution of the land, etc. to be sufficiently compared to the cost to be incurred in restitution, the economic value from restitution of the land, etc. to determine whether it is impossible for social norms, by specifying the degree of the land to be collapsed into the river or by means of witness or other various evidence, the degree and speed of the area to which the land has been collapsed into the river, the degree of the depth of the area to which the land has been fall (whether it is the side or

However, without any evidence as to this point, the court below acknowledged that the land of this case was stolen only by the very abstract expression testimony that was distributed prior to 1950, among the testimony of the non-party witness of the first instance trial without any evidence, and abandoned it as stated in the judgment below, it is deemed that the court below committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment, by recognizing the facts without any evidence, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

There is reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

Since a public project operator's act of acquiring land necessary for the project is merely a juristic act under private law conducted as a private economic entity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3871, Oct. 27, 1992) and the acquisition of the land through consultation takes effect only between the parties. In this regard, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim for compensation for the acquisition through consultation between the defendant and the intervenor joining the defendant as to the land in this case is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legal nature of the acquisition through consultation.

There is no reason for this issue.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff on the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)