(a) Whether an appeal was made to correct the error of the reasons for the judgment of the person who received the decision in full winning the case; or whether measures, other than a certain portion of land, reverted to the State when determining the conditions for the reclamation of public waters, belong to the State;

A. An appeal is intended to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself. Therefore, an appeal against a judgment in favor of the appellant cannot be permitted, and in principle, whether a judgment is disadvantageous to appellant or not shall be determined on the basis of the main text of the judgment, and if an appellant’s claim is wholly accepted, there is no benefit of appeal even if there is a complaint in the grounds for the judgment.

B. In granting a license for reclamation of public waters, there was an additional note that a certain portion of the reclaimed land should be reverted to the State, but when granting the first authorization of completion of reclamation on the part of the reclaimed land, it did not belong to the State and reverted to the reclamation licensee, and then arbitrarily reverted the land within the specific part of the reclaimed land that could have been reverted to the State at the time of the first authorization of completion of reclamation, to the State on the remaining part of the reclaimed land at the time of the second authorization of completion of reclamation. There is no ground for the reclamation license.

(a) Article 392 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 14(1) of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act (Act No. 2411, Dec. 30, 1972);

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Da498 delivered on October 12, 1982, 81Nu158 delivered on May 24, 1983, 83Da515 delivered on October 25, 1983

The bankruptcy trustee of the Indian Development Corporation, the bankruptcy corporation, the plaintiff Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul Regional Construction Administration

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu1115 decided Feb. 18, 1986

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each of the plaintiff and the defendant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

An appeal is to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself. Therefore, appeal against a judgment in favor of one party is not allowed. Whether a judgment is disadvantageous to an appellant or not must be determined on the basis of the text of the judgment in principle (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu158, May 24, 1983).

The court below revoked the defendant's disposition of approving the completion of reclamation of public waters according to the plaintiff's purport of the claim, and stated that the defendant's disposition against the plaintiff was unlawful and unjust in that it attached to the part that owned the land of 141.463 square meters of Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, ( Address omitted) among reclaimed land executed by the plaintiff, and its father's revocation is not allowed. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion stated that the plaintiff's revocation of the disposition of approving the completion of the reclamation of public waters is not allowed. The plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition of approving the completion of the reclamation of public waters on the ground of the part that the part that nationalizes of the attachment drawings (3) among reclaimed land executed by the plaintiff on the ground that it was illegal as a part of the part that nationalization of the attachment drawings (3) among reclaimed land,

However, it is obvious that the instant claim is a single claim seeking the revocation of the Defendant’s disposition of approving the completion of reclamation works of public waters as of September 16, 1983. Ultimately, the lower court accepted all the Plaintiff’s claims, and the Plaintiff is not an illegal appeal that does not have any interest in appeal, as it is nothing more than an objection due to the Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s other grounds of appeal should be dismissed

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer.

In granting a license for reclamation of public waters, the additional clauses were attached to the State to revert the specific part of the reclaimed land to the State, but when granting the first authorization of completion of reclamation for the part of the reclaimed land, the ownership of the specific part of the land in the same region shall not belong to the State, and the second authorization of completion of reclamation for the remaining part of the reclaimed land may be reverted to the State at the time of the first authorization of completion of reclamation, but the arbitrary ownership of the land in the area of the specific part not reverted to the State is illegal unless there are grounds for the reclamation license.

In the same purport, the court below, in case where the reclamationr approved the completion of the part of the swimming pool at the time of the original adjudication, which could have been reverted to the State when granting authorization for the completion of the construction work, by deeming that the reclamationr was the land created by the execution of the reclamation work (Article 14(1) and Article 2411 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act), the land portion is confirmed to be owned by the reclamationr (Article 14(1) and Article 2411 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act), and later, when granting the authorization for the completion of the construction work for the second and third sections, the ordinary reclaimed land, which is not a specific part of the water surface, which is not the

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed, and the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)