2006da 1304 Land delivery, etc.

n*

Kuju-si Thailand**

Attorney***

Won-si

Representative Market*

Attorney Park Jae-hoon

March 14, 2007

March 28, 2007

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant successively connects the following points to the plaintiff * Wonju** * ** * * 6,7,8,9, 10, 11, 19, 20, 12, 21, 13, 14, 15, 18, 17, 17, and 2, 3, 4, 1,00 square meters above the ground bank of the square of land.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 28, 1963, the surrounding rivers of the land stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") were designated as the name of the original state river pursuant to the Gangwon-do Public Notice No. 1463 and as the mutatis mutandis river (current local class 2 river) with a certain section.

B. On December 21, 1994, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under its name, which was based on sale on January 25, 1984.

C. Among the land in this case, a ship connecting each point of 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, 20, 21, 21, 21, 13, 14, 15, 18, 17, and 4 in sequence, among the land in this case:

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 5, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, 5 and 6-1, 2, 5 and 6-6, and images, appraiser** the result of appraisal and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The land of this case is owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant establishes a bank of this case on his own discretion and uses and manages it without obtaining the approval of use from the plaintiff or undergoing another procedure, and thus, the defendant seeks removal of the bank of this case and delivery of the land.

(b) the board;

However, the plaintiff's assertion is difficult to recognize its validity for the following reasons.

First, in light of the land of this case and its surrounding conditions, and the location of the bank of this case and the implementation process of Gyeongri Project, etc., which are recognized on the records, the original city directly installed the bank of this case on the land of this case before around 1980, which was before the plaintiff acquired ownership of the land of this case, and continuously maintained the bank with the consent of the installer after the bank of this case was installed by others. The management agency of this case, the Gangwon-do, the management agency of this state, seems to have managed the bank of this case through the original city.

However, Article 12 of the former River Act, enacted by Act No. 892 on December 30, 1961, shall be announced publicly as determined by the Minister of Construction and Transportation when the management agency determines a river area. This provision shall also apply to the case where the river area is altered. However, until the management agency determines a river area, the area of a river shall be determined as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and the so-called "public announcement system of the determination of the river area" was selected. However, as seen above, the original river area was designated and publicly announced as the name and section of the river area and there is no other material to know that the river area was separately determined and publicly announced, and the land was temporarily incorporated into the river area at the latest (limited to the case where the river area was temporarily excluded from the existing river area and the area of the river area). However, this provision shall not apply to the case where the land of this case was newly incorporated into the river area and the area of the river area, which was newly designated as the river area.

Next, although the owner of the land transferred to the district of the former river and the current local second-class river is subject to restrictions on its use or profit-making, it is evident that the ownership does not become national ownership, as it does not naturally become national ownership.

Ultimately, considering such overall circumstances, the bank of this case was established lawfully in accordance with the former River Act, and it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff, who acquired the right to own the land after the land was incorporated into the original state river area, acquired the land of this case, or at least waived the right to use and profit from the part of the bank of this case among the land of this case.

Therefore, even though the Plaintiff may receive compensation for losses due to the restriction on ownership based on the relevant provisions, such as Article 74 of the River Act, it is not permissible to permit the Defendant to seek removal of the bank of this case and delivery of the land as above, regardless of whether the Plaintiff may receive compensation for losses due to the restriction on ownership.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is rejected as it is without merit.

Kim*

A person shall be appointed.