(a) Requirements for becoming a river area under the old Decree of the Shipbuilding (Ordinance No. 22, Jan. 22, 1927)

B. Whether the owner of a non-state-owned land is compensated for losses under the River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of January 19, 1971)

(c) A person liable to compensate for losses for any land located near a Han River that has become a place excluded from Japanese colonial rule;

A. According to Articles 1 and 11 of the former Joseon River Decree (Ordinance No. 22, Jan. 22, 1927) and Article 21 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Decree, the sections of a river which is an ancillary area of a river shall be determined by the name and section designation of the Joseon General, but a river area which is the crossing area shall not be deemed a river area unless there is an act of recognizing a river area by a public notice and notification of the management agency in accordance with Article 21 of the Enforcement Rule of the above Act with respect to the relevant area.

B. According to Articles 2(1)2 and 3 of the River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971), land belonging to a river area excluded is naturally reverted to the State according to the provisions of the Act. Meanwhile, although there is no direct compensation provision that compensates the owner of the non-state-owned land due to the implementation of the Act, there is no provision that compensates for the loss, the provisions of Article 74 of the same Act concerning the requirements for compensation for loss under Article 74 of the same Act are listed as an example rather than a limited list of the grounds for compensation, the management agency shall apply the above provision to the owner of the non-state-owned land by analogy.

C. If a waterproof removal project executed near the Han River basin of the Han River basin was completed at the time of Japan, the Minister of Construction and Transportation who manages the said river zone shall compensate for any loss incurred therefrom, if the land was located in the vicinity of the Han River basin of the Han River basin of the Han River basin and was transferred to the Han River basin of the Han River basin of the Han River basin and was registered for the transfer of ownership.

(a) Articles 1 and 11 of the former Joseon River Decree (Ordinance No. 22, Jan. 22, 1927); Article 21 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Decree; Article 2(1)2, 3, 74, 74(1), and 11 of the River Act (amended by Act No. 2292, Jan. 19, 197);

A. Supreme Court Decision 67Nu163 delivered on April 23, 1968; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu33 delivered on March 27, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 84Ka36 delivered on November 12, 1985

[Judgment of the court below]

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu86 delivered on January 19, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers.

With respect to the third point:

According to Article 1 of the former Chosun River Decree (Ordinance No. 22, Jan. 22, 1927), the term "river" means a river whose name and section are designated as particularly important for the public interest. Article 11 of the same Decree provides that the river area shall be recognized by the management agency, and Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Decree provides that the river area shall be recognized under Article 11 of the same Decree shall be notified by the management agency, and it shall be notified to the interested parties. Accordingly, a river area which is a subordinate area of a river shall be determined by the name and section designation, but its crossing area shall not be deemed to have been a river area unless the management agency's announcement and notification under Article 21 of the above Enforcement Rule was made with respect to the relevant area (see Supreme Court Decision 67Nu163, Apr. 23, 1968). The opinion of the court below that there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the river area's act of attribution from the management agency of this case.

We cannot accept the conclusion that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the independent opinion on Article 11 and Article 4 of the Act, which is merely a provision of the general administrative criteria for the recognition of river areas and the timely order for the recognition of river areas.

With respect to paragraphs 2 and 4:

According to Article 2 (1) 2 of the River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971), the term "river area" means any of the following areas. The term "river area" means a river area where a bank (limited to a river management agency or a person who has obtained permission or delegation from the river management agency) exists under the item (c). The term "river area" refers to a river area from the bank (referring to a river area from the bank). Article 3 of the same Act provides that a river shall be State-owned. Thus, according to the purport of the above provisions, the land belonging to the excluded river area shall be naturally reverted to the State according to the provisions of the Act. On the other hand, Article 74 of the same Act does not stipulate a direct compensation provision that compensates the owner of the excluded land, but Article 78 (1) of the same Act excludes State-owned land from the compensation requirement, and Article 78 (2) of the same Act provides that the management agency shall apply the aforementioned provision to the owner of the excluded State-owned land from the compensation Act.

In this case, the court below determined that the land of this case was not subject to punishment from the time when it was completed on December 1922, as the land located in an island of a considerable size that had been in contact with the bank in front of the ○○ apartment complex, which started from the west of the present Han River and opened to the northwest of the Northwest of Korea, and opened to the north north of Korea, and came to be excluded from punishment from the time when it was completed on November 11, 1953, and on September 24, 1962, since the plaintiff was off the land of this case, which was reverted to the country of November 11, 1953, and was completely paid the price and was excluded from the time of the enforcement of the River Act since the registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 24, 1962, and it was legitimate to determine that the land of this case was excluded from the river area under Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the River Act only due to the enforcement of the River Act.

However, in this case seeking the cancellation of the judgment of the defendant who dismissed the plaintiff's application for adjudication on the ground that the land in this case is not subject to compensation for losses, the court below shall deliberate on and calculate the compensation amount without any need to deliberate in determining its illegality. Even if there were errors identical to the theory of lawsuit in the calculation process, it shall not be deemed that this affected the conclusion of the judgment. We cannot accept any argument.

With respect to No. 1:

According to Article 11 of the River Act, the river shall be managed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation: Provided, That the river designated by the Presidential Decree shall be managed by the competent Do governor, and according to Article 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act based on this, only the section of the Han River, which is incorporated into the Han River basin due to the enforcement of the River Act, shall be determined by the Management Office of the competent Do governor, with the starting point of the Hanyang-gun, Seoyang-gun, Seoyang-gun, Seoyang-gun, Seoyang-gun, Seoyang-do, the Hanyang-do, the starting point of the Han River basin, which is the Han River basin, as the starting point of the Han River basin. Thus, if the location of the land of this case, which was incorporated into the Han River basin due to the enforcement of the River Act, is obviously defined by the Minister of Construction and Transportation as the Management Office of Construction and Transportation pursuant to Article 11 of the same Act, the land of this case shall be compensated for losses therefrom. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as mentioned above.

Since the land of this case was excluded from the land due to the removal of the above Gyeongsung branch office, the argument that the compensation management agency is the land of this case is merely an independent opinion based on the premise that the land of this case was nationalized as the above bank construction.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)