Permission to occupy the site of the public waters bank and the right of association;

(a)This Act shall apply to the permission for the occupation and use of bank sites constructed after obtaining a license under the Public Waters Reclamation Act;

(b) When a local management agency permits possession of public waters, breakwaters, etc. pursuant to this Act, there is no provision that a person with a right of interest should be treated preferentially, and it is deemed appropriate solely for the prevention and mitigation of public danger and injury and the promotion of public welfare, it shall determine at its discretion whether to grant permission.

Articles 1 and 4 of the Public Waters Management Act

108 108

The Foundation shall be the Foundation

Seoul High Court Decision 62Ra98 delivered on November 1, 1962

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1 is that the Public Waters Reclamation Act (hereinafter “Public Waters Reclamation Act”) provides that matters concerning the license and supervision in reclaiming public waters are subject to the relevant provision, and that matters concerning the management of state-owned property, such as roads, banks, reservoirs, and other public facilities established through the implementation of reclamation works for reclaiming public waters are not subject to the relevant provision, and therefore there is no reason to argue that the matters concerning the management of the bank site should be subject to the Public Waters Reclamation Act, and there is no provision that the local management agency should give priority to treating those who have any right of preference when granting permission for occupying public waters pursuant to the Public Waters Reclamation Act, and it is essential to determine the legitimacy of the permission at a discretion when the local management agency deems it appropriate to contribute to the prevention and mitigation of public danger and injury and the promotion of public welfare, even if there is a person who obtained permission from the local management agency by setting the period of occupation of the bank site, the local management agency cannot be obliged to grant permission again to the person who obtained the permission prior to the occupancy.

The paper is without merit.

The final and conclusive judgment as to the ground of appeal No. 2 is nothing more than confirming that the plaintiff has the right to possess the bank site in this case from July 18, 1958 to July 30, 1960. Even after the expiration of the period, it is clear that the plaintiff does not have the right to possess the bank site after the expiration of the period, and in the permission to occupy the bank site pursuant to the Public Waters Management Act, the local management authorities make a decision at their discretion on what appropriate cases are to achieve the purpose of preventing and reducing public danger and injury and promoting public welfare, and it is not necessary to consider any relationship in the past. The above explanation is without merit to review the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant in detail, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant's administrative disposition in this case is based on abuse of discretionary power. Thus, it is not reasonable to hold that the original judgment is legitimate.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. 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.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Cho Jin-man (Presiding Judge) and Lee Jong-man (Presiding Justice)