[1] In a case where a bank site and a non-bank were owned by the State from July 20, 1971 to December 31, 1984 prior to the enforcement date of the amended Act of the River Act (Act No. 3782) from July 20, 1971, which was the enforcement date of the amended Act of the River Act (Act No. 2292), whether the competent authority should compensate for the loss suffered by the owner of the land without any explicit provision (affirmative), and whether the subject of compensation is limited to the land registered (negative)

[2] Where a Mayor/Do Governor directly files an administrative suit against the Mayor/Do Governor because the Mayor/Do Governor did not notify or publicly announce the procedure for claiming compensation under the Act on Special Measures for Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into Rivers, the time of assessing the amount of compensation

[1] According to Article 2(1)2(b) and (c) and Article 3 of the River Act (Act No. 2292), the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into a River (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) does not stipulate an explicit provision on the compensation for State-owned land before December 31, 1984, the enforcement date of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into a River from July 20, 1971, when the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into a River (Act No. 2292), and Article 2(1)2(b) and (c) and Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Conservation of Land (Act No. 2292), so long as the bank site and exclusion area were national-owned land together with the river basin, the owner of the State-owned land should be compensated for losses, and there are no reasonable grounds to regard the method of compensation as applicable to the Act prior to the enforcement date of the Act on Special Measures for the Management of the River Act.

[2] Where the Mayor/Do Governor directly files an administrative suit against the Mayor/Do Governor as a result of failure to notify or publicly announce the procedures for claiming compensation for land incorporated into a river under the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land incorporated into a river (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”), the amount of compensation should be calculated based on the price at the time of the appraisal for compensation. However, in the case of land incorporated into a river, it is general that the price change is not significant in light of the current state of use or the public law restrictions on the pertinent land. Thus, it is not illegal even if the amount of compensation is calculated based on

[1] Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into Rivers; Article 2 (1) 2 and Article 3 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 3406 of March 31, 1981) / [2] Articles 2, 5 and 6 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into Rivers

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2011Du2743 decided August 25, 201 (Gong2011Ha, 1945)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Gi-science et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gyeonggi-do (Court of Law, Attorney Kim Ji-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu32107 decided June 14, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence of employment, and determined that the Plaintiffs are entitled to claim compensation under the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into Rivers (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”), on the following grounds: (a) the circumstance of each land listed in the judgment of the first instance [Attachment] 1 (hereinafter “each land of this case”) prior to the subdivision of each land listed in the list 1 (hereinafter “each land of this case”) is the same as that of the deceased Nonparty who is the fleet of the Plaintiffs; and (b) accordingly,

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The remaining grounds of appeal on this part are new allegations in the final appeal and cannot be deemed legitimate grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to Articles 2(1)2(b) and (c) and 3 of the Act on the Amendment of the River Act (Act No. 2292), the damages suffered by the owners of the bank site and exclusion area naturally becomes state-owned areas under the provisions of the Act on the Amendment of the River Act (Act No. 2292), but the Act on the Special Measures does not stipulate explicit compensation provisions as to whether the land was State-owned or State-owned before the enforcement date of the Act from July 20, 1971 (Act No. 3782) to December 31, 1984 (Act No. 3782). However, insofar as the bank site and exclusion area were state-owned areas along with the river basin and river basin, the damages incurred by the owners of the bank site should be compensated, and there is no reasonable ground to view the compensation method differently from the Act on the Amendment of the River Act (Act No. 2292). 201, Dec. 27, 1982).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court of first instance (attached Form 1), which held that the land Nos. 1 and 2 incorporated into the river area around 1972 and the land unregistered is eligible for compensation among the land listed in the list No. 1, is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of application of the special measures as

3. As to the third ground for appeal

In Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures, the Mayor/Do Governor shall notify in writing the landowners and interested persons registered in the land protocol prepared on a river within three months from the enforcement date of this Act of the procedures for claiming compensation, as prescribed by Presidential Decree: Provided, That where a person to be notified is not clear or his/her address, residence, or any other place to be notified is unknown, the procedures for claiming compensation shall be publicly announced in a major daily newspaper." Article 6 (1) provides that "The evaluation of compensation under Article 2 shall be based on the price on the date the procedures for claiming compensation are notified or publicly announced pursuant to Article 5, but the appraisal of the said compensation shall be based on the price on the date the procedures for claiming compensation are notified or publicly announced pursuant to Article 5, but the land category and use status, restrictions under the public law on the relevant land, current utilization of the relevant land, and the arm's length price, etc. of neighboring land shall be taken into consideration at the time of incorporation, the provisions

Article 7(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Special Measures for the Compensation of Land, Etc., which stipulates that the State shall request the appraisal of the land subject to compensation to two or more appraisal business entities under the Act on the Public Announcement of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate to assess the amount of compensation on the basis of the date of notification or public announcement of the procedure for claiming compensation in principle, not on the time of previous incorporation in the determination of compensation. If the Mayor/Do Governor fails to notify or publicly announce the procedure for claiming compensation under the Act despite the existence of the land subject to compensation, it is difficult for landowners and interested persons to proceed to the procedure for claiming compensation as prescribed under the Act because it is difficult for the Mayor/Do Governor to know the existence of the land subject to compensation. Article 6(2) of the Act on the Special Measures for the Compensation of Land, etc. provides that the amount of compensation for the land subject to compensation shall be calculated on the basis of the date of announcement or public announcement of the procedure for the enactment of the Act on the Special Measures for the Compensation of Land, etc., which provides that no special appraisal or public announcement is made.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just to determine the amount of compensation as stated in its holding based on the appraisal result of the first instance court appraiser who has completed correction of the appraised value due to other factors, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the timing or method of appraisal, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

4. Conclusion

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 Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)