1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part regarding the confirmation of illegality of the public notice omission is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On January 16, 200, the Plaintiff inherited the area of 3,838 square meters (attached Form 1. The section “B”, hereinafter referred to as “existing site”) in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Seoul-do.

However, the existing site came into a river due to heavy flood caused by a typhoon on September 11, 1959, and the soil was washed out, and the land of this case was stored in the part “A” as stated in the Map 1. A, which was the existing river.

At that time, the previous site was owned by the Plaintiff’s parents, and the Plaintiff’s parents developed the instant site in lieu of the existing site that became a river, and used it as farmland, and the Plaintiff’s husband and wife used the said site as farmland and orchard.

B. A river flowing adjacent to the instant site is D, which is a local river designated and publicly announced on the basis of the River Act, and the instant site was excluded from a river area due to flood change due to flood, and thus, the Defendant, a river management agency, is obligated to publicly notify the said site as desolate river site within three years from the date of occurrence of the instant site. However, the Defendant did not publicly notify the said site as desolate river site even after the lapse of more than fifty years from the date of occurrence of the instant site.

In addition, according to Article 85 (1) of the River Act, the defendant is obligated to exchange the site of this case, which is a desolate river site, with the existing site, which is a new river area, but rather, did not exchange the land to the plaintiff.

C. Therefore, the Defendant’s omission that the instant site was not publicly announced as desolated site is unlawful, and the Plaintiff’s refusal to exchange desolated site is also unlawful.

2. Of the instant lawsuit, ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the part regarding the confirmation of illegality of the public notice omission, the litigation for the confirmation of illegality of omission can be instituted by only the person who filed the petition and has legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of omission (Article 36 of the Administrative Litigation Act), and the parties to the lawsuit against the administrative agency.