(a)whether the exclusion from the bank from the lower part of the river area naturally belongs to the river area without the designation of the management agency (affirmative);

Whether it is an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation by a management agency pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulations on the Compensation for Land Incorporated into River under Article 2 of the amended Rules of the River Act (Act No. 3782) (negative)

A. According to the relevant laws and regulations including Article 2(1) of the River Act, the so-called exclusions located on the side of the lower court from the bank shall naturally belong to the river area under the former part of Article 2(1)2(c) of the same Act, and such exclusions are not required to be designated by the management agency upon the application of the latter part of Article 2(1)2(c) of the same Act.

The preparation and public notice of a land record pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulations on the Compensation for Land Incorporated into a River under Article 2 of the amended Rules of Act No. 3782, the amended Rules of the River Act (Act No. 3782) is merely to inform a river of the land already incorporated into a river and urge the claim for compensation, and thereby, it does not have to be recognized (designated) as being incorporated into a river area or incorporated into a river area, and it does not have a new legal effect such as the occurrence of rights or the burden of obligations. Thus,

(a) Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the River Act; Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the Addenda of the same Act ( December 31, 1984); Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 2, 19, and 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 3782 of the Addenda of the amended Rivers Act (Act No. 3782); Article 4 of the Regulations on Compensation for Land Incorporated into Rivers

A. Supreme Court Decision 79Da812 delivered on July 10, 1979 (Gong1979, 12073) 90Nu5689 delivered on December 21, 1990 (Gong191, 647)

Plaintiff 1 and 249 Plaintiffs, Attorneys Kim Young-sub et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu23702 delivered on August 29, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the river compensation regulations enacted pursuant to Article 2 (1) and (5) of the Addenda of the River Act stipulate the procedures for compensation on the ground that the river compensation regulations enacted pursuant to Article 4 (5) of the River Compensation Regulations stipulate that each land was incorporated into the river area under the name of the plaintiffs, and thus, the compensation for loss should be immediately forwarded to the river management agency, and the management agency should immediately provide that the public notice should be made pursuant to Article 830 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Notice (hereinafter the public notice of this case) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on November 22, 1986, for the confirmation of the fact that the land was incorporated into the river area. However, according to the former part of Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the River Act, the court below determined that the land should be incorporated into the river area as the public's duty to seek the invalidation of the rights of the plaintiffs, as the land should be incorporated into the river area's specific duty to be incorporated into the river area.

When examining related laws including Article 2(1) of the River Act (amended by Act No. 3406 of March 31, 1981), the so-called exclusion from the bank from a river area naturally belongs to a river area under the former part of Article 2(1)2(c) of the River Act, and such exclusion does not require the designation of a river area subject to the latter part of Article 2(1)2(c) of the River Act (amended by Act No. 3406 of December 21, 199; 90Nu5689 delivered on December 21, 190).

As such, Article 2 of the Addenda of the River Act is amended by Act No. 3782, Dec. 31, 1984; and Article 2 of the Addenda of the River Act provides for the procedure of compensation, such as the preparation of land protocols and the announcement thereof, with respect to the land to be compensated under the provision on the compensation for the land incorporated into a river enacted by the delegation provision (No. 11919, Jun. 12, 1986).

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned relevant laws and regulations, the preparation and public notice of a land protocol in accordance with the above compensation regulations are merely demanding the claim for compensation by notifying the land already incorporated into a river, and thus does not require the relevant land to be designated as incorporated into a river area or incorporated into a river area, but it does not bring new legal effects such as the creation of rights or the burden of obligations. Thus, it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation.

The court below's decision that the notice of this case as to the exclusion from the above opinion cannot be seen as an act of external legal effect and thus does not constitute an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation. There is no illegality of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, omission of judgment, incomplete hearing, or lack of reasoning as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the theory argues that the river area should be designated as the same as the case in the latter part of the above sub-paragraph (c) even in the case of the exclusion of the court below based on the judgment of February 27, 1990. However, it cannot be accepted as the opinion of the reading group misunderstanding the purport of the above judgment. All arguments are without merit.

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.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)