[1] The legal nature of the right to claim compensation for losses under Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the River Act (amended by Act No. 3782) and Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the Act (amended by Act No. 3782) and the procedure of administrative litigation (=administrative litigation)

[2] The form of a lawsuit seeking the payment of compensation or the confirmation of a claim for compensation under Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the River Act (amended by Act No. 3782), Article 2(1) and Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the River Act (amended by Act No. 3782), for which the extinctive prescription of a claim for compensation under Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the River Act (amended by Act No. 3782), is sought (=Party

[1] Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the River Act (amended Act, Act No. 3782), provides that the management agency shall compensate for losses with respect to the land which became a river area due to the river before December 31, 1984 prior to the enforcement date of the amended River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971) and the land which was excluded from the State due to the enforcement of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 197). Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation of Land incorporated into a river area, the extinctive prescription of which expires under Article 2 of Addenda of the amended River Act (Act No. 3782), which falls under Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the amended River Act, and the Mayor/Do governor shall compensate for such losses due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the State's claim for compensation due to the expiration of the existing provisions of the River Act itself.

[2] In full view of Article 2 of the Addenda to the River Act (amended by Act No. 3782, Dec. 31, 1984) and Articles 2 and 6 of the "Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into a River Area, the extinctive prescription of a claim for compensation under Article 2 of Addenda to the amended Act of the River Act (amended by Act No. 3782), the claim for compensation for losses under the above provisions shall naturally arise if the land was designated as a river area before December 31, 1984, and shall not arise only by the decision of the management agency on the payment of compensation. Thus, a lawsuit seeking the payment of compensation for losses or seeking the confirmation of a claim for compensation for losses under the above provisions shall be governed by the

[1] Article 2 of the Addenda to the River Act ( December 31, 1984), Article 3782 of the Addenda to the River Act (Act No. 3782), Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land to be Included in River Area for which the extinctive prescription of a claim for compensation expires under Article 2 of the Addenda to the River Act (Act No. 3782) / [2] Article 2 of the Addenda to the River Act (Act No. 3782), Article 2 and Article 6 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land to be Included in River Area, Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5689 delivered on December 21, 1990 (Gong1991, 645), Supreme Court Decision 90Da8978 delivered on April 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 148), Supreme Court Decision 93Da46827 delivered on June 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2086), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12050 Delivered on January 26, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 793), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da46065 delivered on November 8, 200 (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17039, Apr. 25, 2003); Supreme Court Decision 2002Da36039 delivered on March 23, 209 (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 200393, Apr. 25, 2003)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea and one other (Law Firm Jina, Attorneys Yoon Won-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na35545 delivered on January 14, 2004

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the judgment is revoked. The case is transferred to the Seoul Administrative Court.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. Measures of the original judgment and the first instance;

The court below and the court of first instance sought confirmation that the plaintiffs have a claim for compensation under Article 2 of the "Special Measures Act on the Compensation for Land incorporated into a River Area for which the extinctive prescription of a claim for compensation under Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended Act of Act No. 3782 (hereinafter "Special Measures Act") has expired on the grounds that the land of this case owned by them was incorporated into a river area before December 31, 1984, they rejected all the plaintiffs' claims after deliberation and determination according to the procedures and methods of civil procedure on the premise that the confirmation of the claim for compensation under Article 2 of the Special Measures Act is subject to civil procedure.

2. Legal nature of a claim for compensation for losses for the land incorporated into river areas;

However, a claim for compensation for losses under Article 2 of the Addenda to the amended River Act (Act No. 3782) or Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation of Losses under Article 2 of the Addenda to the amended River Act (Act No. 3782) should be subject to administrative litigation, not civil litigation, for the following reasons. Therefore

A. The former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292, Jan. 19, 1971; hereinafter “former River Act”) adopted the so-called “legalism of a river area,” and newly established a provision that, even if the management agency did not separately designate the river area, the river area becomes a State-owned river area (Article 2(1)2 and Article 3), and the amended River Act shall compensate the management agency for its losses with respect to the land newly designated as a river area as a river area as it fell under the detention basin under Article 74(2) of the current River Act, and the latter provisions are maintained as it is until the current River Act.

As such, the provision of a claim for compensation for damages for land incorporated into a river area by the amended River Act, etc. is concrete in the River Act the claim for compensation for losses under Article 23(3) of the Constitution. Since it is intended to compensate for losses of land owners due to the exercise of governmental authority by the state of so-called legislative expropriation, which directly belongs to private land by the River Act itself, the claim for compensation for losses for the land incorporated into a river area is clear that it is a right under public law. Therefore, the claim for compensation for losses under the main rule of the River Act for land incorporated into a river area from the amended River Act to the current River Act is not a civil lawsuit for a dispute between private persons, but a legal relationship under public law. Accordingly, the claim for compensation for losses under the main rule of the River Act for land incorporated into a river area has been defined or interpreted as an administrative litigation, and it has been dealt with as a case in practice (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da46827, Jun. 28, 199; 201Du1369, Apr. 25, 2003).

B. However, prior to December 31, 1984, the enforcement date of the amended River Act under Article 2(1) of the Addenda thereto, the amended River Act stipulated that the management agency shall compensate for its losses with respect to the land which became a river area and the land which was excluded from the state-owned property due to the enforcement of the former River Act. Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Measures provides that the Mayor/Do Governor shall compensate for its losses with respect to the land for which the claim for compensation is extinguished due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period under Article 2(2) of Addenda of the amended River Act, which falls under Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the amended River Act. Since the claim for compensation under the above provisions are all incorporated into a river area under the former River Act itself and were not included in the compensation procedure due to the lapse of the extinctive prescription period, the State's legal nature should be considered as anti-sexual consideration and the remedy for its losses in the form of civil litigation, and therefore, it is clear that the legal nature of the aforementioned claim should be incorporated into the river area under Article 2 of the Public Act.

C. In addition, where a claim for compensation for losses under Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended River Act or Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures is not subject to administrative litigation but subject to civil litigation, a claim for compensation for losses with respect to land incorporated into a river area shall be filed by the above provisions if the time of incorporation is before December 31, 1984. If thereafter, a claim for compensation for losses is filed as a civil litigation pursuant to Article 74 of the amended River Act. If it is apparent that a river area was incorporated into a river area but it is unclear whether the time of incorporation is before December 31, 1984, it would be difficult for a landowner to have considerable confusion and difficulty as to which method should be claimed. If it is integrated into a claim for compensation for losses under Article 2 of Addenda of the amended River Act or Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures, without need to consider the procedure or method, a claim for compensation for losses should be made within the same administrative litigation procedure, and if it is more efficient and more efficient than that of an ex officio and efficient procedure for the correction of administrative litigation.

D. Therefore, the claim for the compensation of losses under Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended River Act or Article 2 of the Special Measures Act shall be based on the administrative litigation procedure, not civil procedure. Unlike this, the Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu5689 delivered on December 21, 1990, which held that the claim for the compensation of losses under the above provisions is subject to civil procedure, not an administrative litigation, shall be modified to the extent that they are inconsistent with the opinion of this Court.

3. The form of administrative litigation;

Meanwhile, in full view of the provisions of Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended River Act and Articles 2 and 6 of the Special Measures Act, the claim for compensation for losses under the above provisions is naturally generated in cases where the land was designated as the river area before December 31, 1984, and is not only generated by the decision of the management agency on the payment of compensation for losses. Thus, the lawsuit seeking the payment of compensation for losses or seeking confirmation of the claim for compensation for losses under the above provisions shall be based on the party litigation under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Administrative Litigation

4. Conclusion

In light of the above legal principles, the court below's decision and the first instance court's decision on the premise that the plaintiffs' claim in this case is subject to civil procedure is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legal nature of the claim for compensation for loss under Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures and the legal procedure.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed ex officio, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the case is transferred to the Seoul Administrative Court, which is the competent court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

The Chief Justice Lee Shin-hoon (Presiding Justice)