[1] The meaning of "area of a registered private land" under Article 12 of the former River Act and Article 8-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which is excluded from a river area under the proviso of Article 897 (3) of the same Act

[2] Whether it is against the principle of trust and good faith to claim that a local government is not a land subject to compensation on the ground that it has already been nationalized under the former River Act after it made compensation under Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the River Act by mistake with regard to the land under paragraph (1)

[3] Whether the "case of recognition of the area of a river managed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation" under Article 897 of the Public Notice of Construction Division is invalid because it violates due process of law or violates Article 20 of the former Constitution concerning the guarantee of property rights (negative)

[4] Whether Article 12 of the former River Act violates Article 20 of the former Constitution on the Guarantee of Property Rights and Article 9 of the former Constitution on the Right to equality (negative)

[1] Under Article 12 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971), and Article 8-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Ordinance No. 1753 of Dec. 16, 1963), "the area of private land" which is excluded from the river area under the proviso of paragraph 3 "the area of a river area managed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation" of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation as of June 1, 1964, is located within the land located within the area of the bank (the land located within the river area from the bank) located within the area of the bank under the main sentence of paragraph 3 of the same public notice, and the land for which the registration of the land was not registered as of the time of the public notice does not fall under the "the proviso of paragraph 3 of the same public notice" even if the registration was lost at the time of the public notice.

[2] The owner of a parcel of land incorporated into a river area pursuant to Article 897 of the Construction 1, June 1, 1964, when he knew that it was a state-owned land due to the enforcement of the new River Act (Act No. 2292, Jan. 19, 1971) and paid or deposited compensation pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the River Act (Act No. 31, Dec. 31, 1984), who lost the ownership of the parcel of land due to the fact that the land incorporated into a river area was state-owned by the public notice of the construction 1964, can receive compensation for losses pursuant to Article 62 of the former River Act (wholly amended by Act No. 2292, Jan. 19, 197). Thus, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City did not constitute the "registered private land" under the proviso to paragraph (3) of the above Construction 1, and it did not violate the principle of trust and good faith.

[3] The recognition and public announcement of a river area under the "case of the recognition of a river area as a river area managed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation" as of June 1, 1964 is a provisional measure until the modification of the relevant drawing concerning the determination of a river area under the proviso of Article 12 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 197), and such recognized area belongs to the criteria for the recognition of a river area under Article 8-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the River Act (Ordinance No. 1753 of Dec. 16, 1963). Thus, the recognition and public announcement does not affect the validity of a river area as a river area recognized and publicly notified in accordance with the procedure under the former River Act, even though it does not indicate the relevant lot number and area, and therefore, it cannot be said that the public announcement of the construction violates due process of law or violates Article 20 of the former Constitution (amended by Act No. 272 of Dec. 27, 1972).

[4] The owner of a parcel of land incorporated into a river area due to the designation and public notice of a river management agency's river area under Article 12 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971) may file a claim for compensation for losses pursuant to Article 62 of the same Act. Thus, the provisions allow the management agency to designate a river area without the predetermined compensation for losses, or allow the management agency to recognize the river area as prescribed by the Ordinance and not allow the inspection of the drawing of the river area until the relevant drawing determined by the management agency is maintained. Thus, the provisions do not violate Article 20 of the former Constitution on the Guarantee of Property Rights (amended by Act No. 2292 of Dec. 27, 1972) and Article 9 of the former Constitution on the Right to equality.

[1] Article 12 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971), Article 8-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the River Act (amended by Act No. 1753 of Dec. 16, 1963), the proviso of Article 8 (3) of the former Act (amended by Act No. 897 of Jun. 1, 1964) / [2] Article 2 of the Civil Act, Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 197), Article 62 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 197), Article 12 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Dec. 19, 197); Article 19 of the former Act (amended by Act No. 1979 of Jun. 29, 19797)

[3] Supreme Court Decision 77Da432 delivered on September 28, 197 (Gong1977, 10311) Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2802 delivered on June 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1130) Supreme Court Decision 91Da43640 delivered on June 9, 192 (Gong192, 219)

Plaintiff 1 and 21 others (Attorney Kim Si-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 delivered on August 1, 200

Supreme Court Decision 93Da62157 delivered on March 22, 1994

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na12397 delivered on September 27, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal together with the supplementary document.

On the first ground for appeal

Under the provisions of Article 12 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 892 of Dec. 30, 1961, and amended by Act No. 1475 of Dec. 5, 1963), Article 8-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Ordinance No. 1753 of Dec. 16, 1963), the term "area of private land" registered within a river area under the proviso of Article 897 of the Construction Notice No. 897 of Jun. 1, 1964, which is excluded from a river area under the main sentence of paragraph 3 of the above Notification, means the land located within the area of the bank located within the area of the bank under the main sentence of paragraph 3 of the above Notification (amended by Act No. 892 of Dec. 30, 1961, and amended by Act No. 1475 of Dec. 5, 1963).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the land of this case, which was not registered at the time of the above public notice, does not fall under the "area of private land registered" under the proviso of paragraph (3) of the above public notice, and that it was incorporated into a river area under the above public notice and became a state-owned property under Article 4 of

The issue is that the term "area of a registered private land" under the proviso of paragraph (3) of the above notice refers to a certain area used for the previous reasons from the river bank or a non-permanent area, and it cannot be viewed as an individual parcel, but it is nothing more than an independent opinion and it cannot be accepted.

In addition, the author argues that the river area, which was determined by the above public notice, was embodied by the evidence Nos. 25 and No. 8-1 of the evidence No. 8 of the former River Act, corresponding to the related drawings under the main text of Article 12 of the former River Act. According to the above drawings, the land of this case is classified as an area of private land which is registered excluded from the river area under the proviso of paragraph (3) of the above public notice. However, the evidence Nos. 25 and No. 8 of the above No. 8 of the above public notice was prepared after 1977 as the discussed land was voluntarily asserted. In this case, the above public notice was completely amended by the former River Act (Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971) and there is no need to prepare the related drawings under the main sentence of Article 12 of the former River Act. Accordingly, the above drawings cannot be accepted under the premise that the above drawings fall under the relation drawings as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 12 of the former River Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the incomplete hearing such as the theory of lawsuit, or the meaning of the "area of the registered private land" as provided in the proviso of paragraph (3) of the above notice. There is no reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

As to a part of the land incorporated into a river area in accordance with the public notice of the above Construction Division, even though the Defendant was mistakenly aware that it became a state-owned land by the implementation of the above new River Act, paid compensation or deposited it in accordance with Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the amended River Act (Act No. 3782 of Dec. 31, 1984), the owner of the pertinent land whose ownership was lost due to the fact that the land incorporated into a river area under Article 897 of the Public notice of the Construction Division of June 1, 1964 was nationalized, can receive compensation pursuant to Article 62 of the above Construction Division of the River Act. Thus, the Defendant did not fall under the "area of private land registered" under the proviso of paragraph (3) of the above Construction Division, and thus, the land of this case was nationalized on June 1, 1964 under the above public notice, and therefore, it did not violate the principle of trust and good faith as to the aforementioned revised River Act (Act No. 3782 of Dec. 31, 1984).

On the third ground for appeal

The recognition and public announcement of a river area under the "case of recognition of a river area managed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation" as of June 1, 1964 is a provisional measure until the relevant drawings relating to the determination of a river area under the proviso of Article 12 of the former River Act are maintained. Such recognition area belongs to the criteria for recognition of a river area under Article 8-2 (Ordinance No. 1753 of December 16, 1963) of the former Enforcement Decree of the River Act. Thus, the above construction area constitutes public announcement of the said construction area, even though there was no indication of the relevant lot number or area in the recognition and public announcement, it does not affect the validity of the river area as recognized and public announcement under the procedures under the former River Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu2802, Jun. 27, 198; 91Da43640, Jun. 9, 192).

On the fourth ground

The owner of a parcel of land incorporated into a river area due to the designation and public notice of the river area by the river management agency under Article 12 of the former River Act may claim compensation for losses pursuant to Article 62 of the same Act. Thus, the above provision allows the management agency to designate a river area under the condition that compensation for losses was not determined in advance, or allow the management agency to allow the inspection of the river area under the conditions as determined by the Ordinance and not to allow the inspection of the drawing of the river area until the relevant drawing determined by the management agency is maintained. Thus, it cannot be said that the above provision violates Article 20 of the former Constitution concerning the guarantee of property rights and Article 9 of the former Constitution concerning the right to equality under Article 20 of the Constitution.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)