(a) Criteria to determine the boundary line of land and sea surface (i.e., the highest high tide of one part of land);

(b) Whether the previous owner acquires the ownership again in a case where the developed land is re-developed (negative)

A. Article 26(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act provides that “When establishing a boundary by boundary of topography, ground water, or above-ground structures, which are the land partitioning in order to newly define the boundary, the following standards shall be followed.” Since Article 26(1)3 provides that “if the land adjoins the surface of the sea, the line which is the largest high tide,” the boundary of the land and sea surface shall be based on the highest high tide level (the highest high tide level) of the part of the land in question, and the small average high tide level (the average high tide in small tide) shall be determined by the boundary of the surface of the sea, or the fall shall not be recognized only if the land is always below the surface of the sea.

(b) If the utility of land has been lost because it has been extremely difficult to restore it by duplicating below the surface of the sea, the previous ownership shall be extinguished permanently, and even if the land which has come up thereafter is re-embankinged, the previous owner may not obtain the ownership again.

A. Article 26(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act / (b) Article 211 of the Civil Act, Article 3 of the River Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 79Da2094 decided Feb. 26, 1980 (Gong1980, 12653) 80Da2523 decided Jun. 23, 1981 (Gong1981, 1408) 84Meu1072 decided Nov. 27, 1984 (Gong1985, 75)

Attorney Long-term and three others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., Pacific Law Office, Attorneys Kim In-con et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daejeon District Court Decision 91Na1545 delivered on May 14, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. As to the fifth ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that, although most of the forest land of this case is currently registered for the transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff, since around August 1979, the forest land of this case was adjacent to the 4m or less in tidal wave before the reclamation project of this case, and if sled water, most of them were sled away from the sled water (3.48m or less in comparison with the average tide tide of the forest of this case). Furthermore, when spopulated water, the whole forest of this case was locked (4.14m or less in front of the forest of this case). Since the defendant was unable to obtain permission for the reclamation of public waters in the forest of this case from around August 1979, the court below held that sled water of this case was destroyed by a large scale of 4m or less in use of the forest land of this case, it did not constitute a violation of the rules of evidence by the defendant's act of removing the forest of this case, and it did not constitute a violation of the law of 98 stepar.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

The defendant's legal representative asserted that "it was impossible to restore the forest of this case to its original state" in the briefs dated May 17, 1989 and the briefs dated April 30, 1991, the defendant's legal representative did not have any error in violation of the principle of pleading in the judgment below. Thus, there is no reason to argue that

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 4

Article 26 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Records Act provides that "When establishing a boundary with a topography, ground water, or ground structure which is a dividing of land in order to newly define a boundary, it shall comply with the following standards." Since Article 26 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Records provides that "the line which is the highest high tide in the case where the land adjoins the surface of the sea," the court below is right and wrong to take the highest high tide level (the highest high tide level; the average high tide in small tide; the average high tide in small tide) of the forest in this case as the boundary line of the land and the sea area, or that the fall may be recognized only if the land is at all times below the surface of the sea."

4. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The above judgment of the court below contains the purport of rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that "the ownership still remains, even if the land was set down below the surface of the sea," and therefore there is no reason to argue that the judgment of the court below erred in the omission of judgment as to the above argument.

B. The court below has rejected the plaintiff's argument that "if the land is filled up again after the opening of the land at the bottom of the sea, the ownership shall be restored."

However, the previous ownership is permanently extinguished if it has lost its utility as it is extremely difficult to restore the land due to the decline below one time, and the previous owner cannot obtain the ownership again even if the land which has been spread after it is re-up (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da2094 delivered on February 26, 1980). Since it is apparent that the plaintiff's above assertion should be rejected, such mistake by the court below is not affected by the judgment, and it is also without merit.

C. In addition, it is merely an independent opinion that the ownership is lost only through the process of nationalization of the rejected land. Thus, it is right and wrong that the court below rejected it, and there is no reason for the argument.

D. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)