(a) Determination of river areas and the validity of registration in the river ledger;

(b) The case holding that the judgment of the court below which recognized the land falling under the river area under Article 2 (1) 2 (a) of the River Act is lawful;

A. In principle, the river area under the River Act is determined according to the form of natural land forming an entire river, and the river management agency’s entry of the current status and management matters in order to facilitate the execution of administrative affairs with respect to the river, and the creation, establishment, acquisition, change, and the effect of the establishment of a right to the land by entering a specific land in this river ledger is not the same as the creation, establishment, alteration, and the effect of the river surface. Thus, even if there are procedural defects in the act of registering a specific land on the river ledger by the river management agency, it does not affect whether the land

(b) The case holding that the judgment of the court below which recognized that the land falling under the river area as provided in Article 2 (1) 2 (a) of the River Act is lawful in regard to the area where the flow of water affects the flow of water at least once a year in view of topography and other circumstances, where the flow of water flows in considerable quantity.

(a)Article 2(1)2(a) of the River Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Nu129 delivered on July 13, 1982 (Gong1982, 760). Supreme Court Decision 78Da1918, 1919, 1920 delivered on August 26, 1980 (Gong1980, 13106)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

The head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu4923 delivered on November 9, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff, etc.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

In principle, a river area under the River Act is determined in accordance with a natural form of land that is integrated with a river (Article 2(1)2). In addition, the river register is recorded in the current state and management matters in order to facilitate the execution of administrative affairs with respect to a river (Article 13). It does not take effect of the creation, creation, acquisition, modification, or extinguishment of a right to the land by entering any specific land in the river register (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu129, Jul. 13, 1982). Thus, the court below did not have any error in the procedure of public announcement under Article 2(1) of the River Act because the Mayor of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (No. 1 omitted), 324.3 square meters and two lots and the former (No. 2 omitted) (No. 952 meters and the former (No. 2 omitted) had any defect in the procedure of registering the land in the river register, and the court below did not have any defect in the procedure of public announcement in the River Act.

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to whether the land of this case falls under the river area, the land of this case is a kind 1 of Han River and its name and section are located in the middle-sea line, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, which is a point in combination with Cheongcheon-do and Cheongcheon-do, the point in which the name and section of this case are designated, Jungcheon-gu, Seoul, the point in combination with the Han River-do-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-do-dong-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do, and the river area is not located in the Han River-do-do-do-do-do-do-do, and as a result of the measurement by not later than February 1, 1977, the land of this case is located at the immediately higher than 1,000 meters from the water level of the river area of this case.

In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the land of this case constitutes a river area under such factual basis as it did not appear to have violated the logical rules or the empirical rules, or there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the River Act.

The issue is that the land of this case does not fall under the river area in light of the actual utilization status of the land of this case and the fact that the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City confirmed that the land of this case should be excluded from the river area under the provisions of Article 13 of the Regulations on the Compensation for Land incorporated into River (Presidential Decree No. 11919 of Jun. 12, 1986) around August 1986, and that the land of this case does not fall under the river area in light of the fact that the owner registered in the register, such as the register or the land cadastre, has not been arranged as the state or has not taken compensation measures since the land of this case was registered in the river register around May 1979, or that this does not fall under the river area. In conclusion, it is nothing more than the independent opinion, including

3. 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.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)