Whether Article 2 (1) 2 (c) and Article 74 of the River Act are unconstitutional (negative)

The provisions of Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the River Act and the provisions of Article 74 of the same Act shall not be deemed to violate Article 22 of the Constitution.

Article 22 of the Constitution, Article 2(1)2(c) and Article 74 of the River Act

Plaintiff 1 and 12 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Park Won-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Korea

Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 83Na1212 delivered on December 8, 1983

The plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The argument that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to exclusion under the River Act or in incomplete deliberation is clear that it does not fall under any of the grounds provided for in Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and thus, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal. The provisions of Article 74 of the same Act concerning exclusion from the area of Article 2(1)2(c) of the River Act cannot be deemed a violation of Article 22 of the Constitution. The decision of the court below that held that the land belongs to the State as the land belonging to the river area and the plaintiffs can claim compensation for losses under Articles 74 and 75 of the River Act is in violation of the Constitution.

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.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)