In case of designation of a river to which Article 74 of the River Act applies mutatis mutandis, whether compensation for losses under Article 74 of the River Act is made (negative)

In cases where land which was originally stored in a river area was originally incorporated into a river area due to the designation of a river to which Article 9(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the River Act applies mutatis mutandis, Article 74(2) of the River Act shall not apply mutatis mutandis to a river to which this Article applies mutatis mutandis, and Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the River Act of December 31, 1984 shall not apply mutatis mutandis to a river to which this Article applies mutatis mutandis, and there is no other provision that Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the River Act of December 31, 1984. The land is not deemed to have suffered new damage

Article 2(1)2 and Article 74 of the River Act, Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the River Act ( December 31, 1984), Article 9(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the River Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Da1073 Decided April 25, 198 (Gong1988, 885) Supreme Court Decision 92Da3793 Decided April 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1718), Supreme Court Decision 93Da46827 Decided June 28, 1994 (Gong194, 2086), Supreme Court Decision 95Da3941 Decided December 8, 1995 (Gong196, 345)

Lee Jin-hoon (Law Firm Jin-ju General Law Office, Attorney Kim-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu37102 delivered on June 28, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the land of this case owned by the plaintiff was originally a reservoir. Article 74 (2) of the River Act was applied mutatis mutandis to the river of this case, and Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the River Act as of November 31, 1982 was applied mutatis mutandis to the river of this case, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the compensation of damages caused by the plaintiff's dismissal of the plaintiff's ground of appeal since the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the compensation of damages from the original river of this case, since the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the compensation of damages from the original river of this case, since the land of this case constitutes land falling under Article 2 (1) 2 (a) of the River Act among the rivers to which Article 9 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the River Act applies mutatis mutandis, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the compensation of damages from the original river of this case.

On the other hand, the remaining grounds of appeal are related to the part of the lower court’s decision additionally, and as long as the lower court’s decision was justifiable, it does not affect the outcome of the lower judgment. Therefore, the grounds for appeal that criticizes the part of the lower court’

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)