A. Validity of registration in the river ledger and whether the river area is designated (negative)

(b) The case holding that if the purpose of land use is to construct a garage, etc. on the land which is a natural green area under the Urban Planning Act, it shall not be deemed as a ground for non-permission under Article 21-4 (1) 3

(c) Whether the items of Article 21-4(1)2 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, which set the criteria for permission for transaction, such as land, are grounds for non-permission separately (negative)

(d) The case holding that if the land subject to permission for transaction is assigned to the land subject to compensation in accordance with the river purification plan prepared by the construction plan, and the flexible transportation company uses the land as a garage, it does not constitute a ground for permission under Article 21-4 (1) 2 (e) or (g) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory;

A. In order to facilitate the execution of administrative affairs concerning rivers, the river management agency’s entry and preparation of the current status and management matters, and no entry of certain land in the river ledger does have the effect of changing rights to such land. Thus, the act of recording it in such river ledger cannot be deemed a designated disposition of the river area.

B. The case holding that since the attached Table 12 of Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act provides that a garage may be constructed in a natural green area, if the purpose of land use is to construct a garage, etc. on the land which is a natural green area under the Urban Planning Act, it shall not be deemed as a ground for nonpermission under Article 21-4 (1)

C. Although Article 21-4 (1) 1 through 5 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, which set the criteria for permission for transaction, such as land, becomes an independent ground for non-permission, each of the items of subparagraph 2 shall not be deemed the ground for non-permission independently from the form of the relevant provision. Thus, even if the disposition agency did not state the fact that the pertinent application for permission for transaction does not fall under any of the items of the same subparagraph on the ground of subparagraph 2 at the time of the disposition, if the disposition agency stated that the pertinent application for permission for transaction does not fall under any of the items of the same subparagraph on the ground of non-permission, it can be asserted at any time at any time, and it shall not be deemed that there are separate

(d) The case holding that, while the land subject to permission for the transaction is incorporated into the land subject to compensation under the Geum River Purification Plan, a budget procurement plan has been formulated for the project plan and a construction plan has been completed and also a construction plan has been prepared, the case holding that, if the dysule transport company for the dysulic power plant uses the land as its garage for the purpose of using it, it does not fall under the grounds for permission under Article 21-4 (1) 2 (e) or

(a) Articles 2(1)2 and 13(b) of the River Act; Article 21-4(1)3 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory; Article 66(1)3 attached Table 12(d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act; Article 21-4(1)2(d) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory; Article 26(3)

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Nu129 delivered on July 13, 1982 (Gong1982,760), 90Nu9896 delivered on October 22, 1991 (Gong1991,2843). Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8794 Delivered on August 27, 1991 (Gong191,249)

Samju Co., Ltd.

Head of Gun

Daegu High Court Decision 90Gu1244 delivered on May 8, 1991

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

In order for the river management agency to smoothly carry out administrative affairs concerning rivers, the river ledger is to enter the current state and management matters, and it is not appropriate to enter any specific land into the river ledger and enter it in the river ledger to take effect of the alteration of rights with respect to such land. Thus, the act of registering it in the river ledger cannot be deemed a designation and disposition of the river area (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu129, Jul. 13, 1982). In addition, the court below's decision that the land in this case does not fall under the river area of the River Act in light of the fact that the land in this case is adjacent to the Geum River, which is the direct river, and the land in this case is located adjacent to the Geum River, which is the area adjacent to the Geum River basin, and there is no possibility of flooding even at the time of flood and there is no bank near it, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles or rules of evidence as pointed out.

With respect to the second ground:

The plaintiff's assertion is not possible to achieve the purpose of land use in this case, and thus, the disposition in this case, which rejected transactions for the feasible purpose of use, is justifiable. This is the ground for non-permission under Article 21-4 (1) 3 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, which is the ground for non-permission under the same Article. However, according to the records, such ground is not specified as the ground for non-permission at the time of the disposition in this case, and the plaintiff is to construct a garage, etc. on the land in this case, which is a natural green area under the Urban Planning Act, and according to the attached Table 12 of Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, it cannot be viewed as the ground for non-permission under Article 66 (1) 3 of the Building Act. The argument

With respect to the third point:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's ground for non-permission on the ground that "No. 4 of the above plan for non-permission on the ground that the plaintiff's use of the land of this case was not specified in Item 4 of Article 21-4 (1) 2 (e) or (f) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and the plaintiff's use of the land of this case for non-permission on the ground that "No. 4 of the above plan for non-permission on the ground that the plaintiff's use of each of the land of this case was not specified in Item 4 (c) and (d) of the same subparagraph as the original plan for non-permission on the ground that the plaintiff's use of the land of this case was not specified in the first plan for non-permission on the land of this case for non-permission on the ground that the plaintiff's use of the land of this case for non-permission on the land of this case for non-permission on the ground that the plaintiff's use of the land of this case was not specified in the plan for non-permission."

However, Article 21-4 (1) 1 through 5 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, which set the criteria for permission for transaction of land, etc., becomes the grounds for independent non-permission, but among them, each item of subparagraph 2 cannot be deemed the grounds for independent non-permission. Thus, even if the disposition agency did not first state that the pertinent application for permission for transaction does not fall under any item of the same subparagraph when it makes a disposition of non-permission on the grounds of subparagraph 2, it can at any time be asserted that it is reasonable at any time when it was included in the grounds for non-permission at the time of the disposition, and it cannot be deemed that the grounds for non-permission stated in the notice of non-permission are different grounds for non-permission.

According to the records, while the defendant does not fall under items (c) and (d) of the above subparagraph, the plaintiff's application is clearly stated that the plaintiff's business is not a business deemed appropriate for the land use of the relevant area, so it shall be deemed that the grounds for non-permission related to item (e) of the above subparagraph are stated. Therefore, the defendant's argument about the plan for the purification of the Geum River shall not be permitted if it claims the grounds for non-permission under Article 21-4 (1) 3 or 4 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, but it shall not be deemed that it claims a new reason within the scope of subparagraph 2 of the same paragraph

Meanwhile, according to Article 121 of the public notice of the construction schedule quoted by the court below, the plaintiff's previous business area and the Jinsan-gun's Jin-gun's Jin-gun's Jin-gun's Jin-gun's Jin-gun's Jin-gun's Jin-gun's Jin-gun's Jin-gun's Jin-gun's Jin-gun's Jin-gun's Jin-gun's Jin-gun's project area, which belongs to the land of this case, are not located within each separate regulatory area, and therefore the plaintiff cannot be regarded as a person carrying on the business within the corresponding area's Jin-gun's Jin-gun's 10 to 13, which has no dispute over the establishment of the land of this case, and it can be recognized that the land of this case is incorporated into the land subject to compensation according to the river purification plan's project plan, and the construction plan is prepared.

Ultimately, the lower court’s rejection of the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds stated in its reasoning shall have affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criteria for the permission for land transaction as stipulated in Article 21-4(1)2 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)