Whether the owner of land designated as the river area of applicable river may directly file a claim for civil compensation for loss or return of unjust enrichment with the river management agency.

Any owner of land who suffers a loss due to the incorporation of land into a river area for which the provisions of Article 74 of the River Act apply mutatis mutandis shall hold consultation with the river management agency as prescribed by the provisions of Article 74 of the same Act, and if such consultation is not reached or is impossible, he may immediately file an application for adjudication with the competent Land Tribunal and receive compensation for the loss according to the result of the administrative litigation against the competent Land Tribunal, and the direct river management agency may not claim compensation for the loss due to civil litigation against the competent Land Tribunal. In addition, as long as the land is incorporated into a river area, the owner shall not be held liable for compensation for the loss due to the restriction on the exercise of his private right to use and profit, regardless of the fact that he suffered the loss due to the restriction on the exercise of his private right to use and profit,

Article 741 of the Civil Act, Article 74 of the River Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Da18511 delivered on October 13, 1992 (Gong1992, 3128) Supreme Court Decision 93Da46827 delivered on June 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2086) Supreme Court Decision 93Da30686 delivered on November 18, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 45)

Plaintiff

Chungcheongnam-do

Daejeon High Court Decision 95Na601 delivered on July 20, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the records of this case, the plaintiff stated on the seventh day of pleading of the first instance court that the cause of this case is changed from the claim for return of unjust enrichment to the claim for compensation under the River Act. Thus, there is no reason to conclude that the cause of this case is the claim for return of unjust enrichment.

In addition, if the land is incorporated into a river area to which the provisions of Article 74 of the River Act apply mutatis mutandis, the owner of the land who suffered loss shall hold consultation with the river management agency as prescribed by the provisions of Article 74 of the River Act, and if such consultation is not reached or is impossible, he may immediately file an administrative lawsuit against the competent Land Tribunal to seek compensation for the loss according to the result of the administrative lawsuit against the competent Land Tribunal, and cannot claim compensation for the loss by civil action against the direct river management agency. In addition, as long as the land is incorporated into a river area, the owner of the land shall be subject to the restriction on the exercise of his private right to use and profit, and even if the land suffers from the loss due to the restriction on the exercise of his private right to use and profit, he shall not claim the return of unjust enrichment, such as possession without the title of the local government (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da46827, Jun. 28, 1994; 93Da30686, Nov. 18, 1994).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)