(a) Designation of river areas in the old River Act;

According to the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971), the river area of a river or a quasi-river shall be determined and publicly announced by the management agency pursuant to Article 12 of the same Act, and even if land is de facto deteriorated, it shall not naturally become a river area without any special procedure. However, according to the current River Act, the river area is not particularly determined and publicly announced by the management agency, but it is recognized that the river area itself itself is a certain river area from among the land within the river area under Article 2 (1) 2 of the River Act, and therefore, the area falling under the above Act shall naturally be a river area.

Article 12 of the former River Act (wholly amended by Act No. 2292 of January 19, 1971); Article 2 of the River Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da812 Decided July 10, 1979

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Attorney Lee Jong-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na1039 delivered on November 12, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined.

According to the former River Act before the Act was wholly amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971, a river area or a river to which Article 12 of the same Act applies mutatis mutandis shall be determined and publicly announced by the management agency pursuant to Article 12 of the same Act, and even if land was de facto deteriorated, a river area shall not naturally become a river area without any special procedure. However, according to the new River Act, a river area shall not be determined and publicly notified by the management agency as before, but shall be recognized as a specific river area by itself from among land within a river area under Article 2 (1) 2 of the River Act. Since Article 10 of the River Act and Article 9 (3) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the River Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to a river area where Article 2 (1) 2 of the River Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to a river area, it shall be deemed that the new river area shall not apply mutatis mutandis to a river area, and the new river area shall be included and publicly notified by the Governor of Gyeonggi-do as of Gyeonggi-do.

Although the decision of the court below is different in the process of recognizing the land of this case as the river area to which this case was applied mutatis mutandis, it is justified in the conclusion, and therefore, it is without merit to discuss the development of the land of this case in the view that it is not the river area to which this case was applied mutatis mutandis, and since the manager of the land of this case is the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do, the civil damages claim against the

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 on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)