If a building has been constructed lawfully with permission to occupy and use a river site before being transferred to a proposed road site, it is not necessary to obtain new permission to occupy and use a road of a sub-road even if the occupancy period expires.

If a building has been constructed lawfully with permission to occupy and use a river site before being transferred to a proposed road site, it is not necessary to obtain permission to occupy and use a new road even after the period of permission expires.

Article 25 of the River Act, Article 40 of the Road Act, Article 74 of the Road Act, Article 75 of the Road Act, Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act

Plaintiff 1 and 36 others

Daegu Market

Daegu High Court Decision 70Gu60 delivered on February 17, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney is examined.

According to the records, it can be known that the evidence No. 12-6 of the evidence No. 12-6 is the protocol of examination of the witness by Nonparty 2, not Nonparty 1, and the original judgment is examined by comparing the original facts with the records, it can be viewed that it was due to the fact that the original building was not registered in the building permit ledger of Daegu City, and that it was not constructed with the building permit obtained, and that there was no error in the rules of evidence in this protocol. Therefore, the argument is groundless.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, according to the records, it can be known that the non-party 3 witness examination protocol is non-party 12 evidence Nos. 12-7 and 12-4, and the defendant's statement that the permission of construction on the building of this case is attached to the defendant's order to remove without compensation at any time when the defendant's order to remove the building of this case is issued. The defendant's statement that each evidence, including the evidence No. 12-4, attached to the above order, is not reliable and there is no proof to prove it. Thus, in reviewing the records of the judgment of the evidence preparation which was completed, if we examine the records of the judgment of the evidence preparation which was conducted without compensation, it can be said that there is no error

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

According to the facts established by the original judgment, this building is already constructed by obtaining permission for the occupation and use of the main river site, which is the site, from the ordinary north-do branch, the management agency of the river site, prior to being transferred to the proposed road site. Thus, even if the period for occupation and use of the river site expires, it is not necessary to obtain new permission for occupation and use of the road under Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of Article 40 of the Road Act. Therefore, the provisions of Article 74, Article 75 of the Road Act are not applicable. Therefore, the original judgment to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by erroneously interpreting the Road Act, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and thus, it is unreasonable to discuss this point.

The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined.

However, in light of the fact that the permission to occupy and use the river site was received from the Gyeongbuk-do branch as seen earlier, and it is reasonable to do so under the River Act, even though the evidence No. 6-1 through No. 4 is in the form of a letter or a pledge from the other party to the Gyeong-gu or Daegu-si, it should be viewed as a face of the Gyeongbuk-do governor's future pledge (the same is in accordance with evidence No. 4-2 No. 5-1 through No. 32 of the evidence No. 5-2 of the evidence No. 4-2), it can be seen that the court below adopted the evidence that the plaintiffs or their electronics obtained the extension of the permission to occupy and use the river site from the Gyeongbuk-do governor and obtained the permission to occupy and use the river site from the defendant, there is no error in matters of misconception of facts due to the judgment of omission or incomplete hearing on the premise that the plaintiffs made a commitment to remove the building without objection under the direction of the defendant.

The grounds of appeal No. 5 are examined.

According to the facts established by the original judgment, the defendant's argument that the administrative disposition is necessary for the public welfare and public interest is not recognized, and it can not be recognized by the theory evidence. Therefore, even if the court below did not make a decision on the above defendant's argument, it should not affect the result of the original judgment accepting the plaintiffs' claim, so there is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant, applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)