A managing authority under Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the River Act ( December 31, 1984)

According to the provisions of Article 2 (1) and Article 11 of the Addenda of the River Act ( December 31, 1984), and Article 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Management Office of Han River for the sections not falling under the sections managed by the competent Do Governor is the Minister of Construction and Transportation.

Article 11 of the River Act, Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the River Act, Article 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and 21 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Attorney Park Jae-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na11250 delivered on November 2, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

After recognizing the facts of the judgment, the court below held that the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages under Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the River Act on the premise that the land of this case was excluded from the land of this case at the original time and the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City was the river management agency

Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the River Act provides that, prior to the enforcement of this Act, where land has become a river area under Article 2 (1) 2 (a) prior to the enforcement of this Act, or where land located within an area excluded from the enforcement of Act No. 2292 on January 19, 1971 becomes a state-owned property, a management agency shall compensate for losses, and Article 11 of the River Act provides that, “river shall be managed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation: Provided, That the river designated by the Presidential Decree shall be managed by the competent Do governor; Article 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the River Act provides that “the river managed by the Do governor pursuant to the proviso to Article 11 of the Act shall be as specified in the attached Table 2” and the attached Table 2 provides that, according to the above attached Table, only the land under the jurisdiction of the Do governor within the scope of one river area under the jurisdiction of the Do governor within the scope of one river area under the jurisdiction of the Do governor.

The court below recognized the management agency of the land of this case, which belongs to the Han River basin under the direct jurisdiction of the Han River basin, as the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City and held that the defendant, the local government to which the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City belongs, is obligated to compensate for losses due to the transfer of the land to the river area, is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 11 of the River Act and Article 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)