(a) River areas under the former River Act;

(b) Requirements for an embankment installed by a person other than the river management agency to be included in one of the "river appurtenances" under Article 2 (1) 2 (b) of the River Act (Article 2 (1) 3 of the same Act;

A. As to the method of determining a river area which is a border area of a river, the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971) has adopted the legal system, the above revised River Act (the current River Act) has adopted the legal system, so even if the management agency of a river to which this provision applies mutatis mutandis designates and announces the name and the section at the time of the enforcement of the former River Act, it is only determined (in the case of the terminal area of a river), and (in the case of a river, a river area which is a border area of a river), the river area was determined only by separately determined and publicly announced by the management agency pursuant to Article 12 of the former River Act, but since the enforcement of the amended River Act, the specific area within a river area under Article 2 (1) 2 (a) through (c) of the same Act has been designated as a river area under the above provision.

B.In order to belong to the "area of land which is the site of river appurtenances" which is the "river area" as stipulated in Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 2 (b) of the amended River Act, a bank which is one of the river appurtenances (Paragraph 3 of the same paragraph) shall be installed by the river management agency or by the person who is permitted or entrusted by the river management agency or by the person who is entrusted by the river; and in addition, there is no ground to regard the embankment prescribed in item (c) of the same subparagraph and the embankment which is the river appurtenances as stipulated in item (b) of the same paragraph, a bank installed by a person other than the river management agency shall be included in the above embankment only with the consent of the installer in order to manage the embankment as river appurtenances in accordance with subparagraph

A. Article 12 of the former River Act (wholly amended by Act No. 292 of Jan. 19, 1970); Article 2(1)2(b) and (c), and Article 2(1)3 of the River Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 79Da812 delivered on July 10, 1979 (Gong1979, 12073) (Gong12073), December 20, 198 (Gong1989, 194).B. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7030 delivered on February 27, 1990 (Gong190, 741)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-Law Office, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-

Chungcheongnam-do, Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na31475 delivered on February 6, 1991

The case shall be reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiffs 1 owned the land of this case from June 25, 1958 to the plaintiff 2 on July 6, 198, the ownership was transferred. The defendant-managed Bocheon-gun created the land of this case as the bank site of Taecheon-do without acquiring the right to use or the ownership of the land of this case. On January 20, 1964, Taecheon-do was designated and publicly announced as the river area of this case as mutatis mutandis application No. 5, Cheongcheon-do announced that the defendant occupied the land of this case as the bank site of Taecheon-do and used the land of this case from June 25, 1958, which became final and conclusive, and the river area of this case could not be managed by the plaintiffs' right to use and manage the land of this case as the ground that the river area of this case was limited by the defendant's right to use the above river area of this case as a matter of course at the time when the River Act was amended (Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 197, 197 of this case.

2. Such determination by the court below is premised on the premise that the land of this case was the river area of the relevant Daecheon River as a result of the enforcement of the above Act. Since the former River Act (the Act before the enforcement of the above Act) adopts the statutory system as to the determination method of the river area which is the border zone of the river, respectively, the above amendment (the current River Act shall also apply hereinafter). Thus, even if the river management agency designates the name and the section at the time of the enforcement of the former River Act, the river area is limited to only the area (the adjoining area of the river) and the river area was determined by separately the management agency pursuant to Article 12 of the same Act, and the river area was decided and announced. However, since the enforcement of the Act, only the specific area within the river area of this case, which falls under Article 2 (1) 2 (a) through (c) through (c) was determined and announced as the river area of this case, it is consistent with the decision of the court below that the river area of this case was designated and announced as the party member of this case 97.198.7.

3. However, in order to belong to "area of land which is the site of river appurtenances" which is the site of river appurtenances as stipulated in Article 2 (1) 2 (b) of the amended River Act, such land as in the case of this case, an "river appurtenances" should be constructed by the river management agency or a person permitted or entrusted by the river management agency, and there is no ground to view any bank which is the river appurtenances as stipulated in item (c) of the same subparagraph and item (b) of the same subparagraph, the bank constructed by a person other than the river management agency shall be included in the above bank only with the consent of the installer in order to manage the bank as river appurtenances according to subparagraph 3 of the same paragraph. Thus, even according to the original judgment, the bank of this case was constructed by the river management agency around 1962, and thereafter, the river of this case cannot be viewed as the land of this case without the consent of the person who installed the river appurtenances in order to manage the above bank as the river appurtenances. Therefore, the defendant cannot be viewed as the land of this case.

Therefore, the lower judgment did not exhaust all necessary deliberations on the requirements for banks under the River Act, or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely recognizing the land in this case as the site of the bank, which is the river area under the amended River Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which is therefore justifiable

4. The original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)