(a) Whether the private right to shipbuilding, river age and spatriarche land has been extinguished;

(b) Whether a private right has been restored if a sloping land was filled up;

(c) Whether the temporary fall and the private right of the river area has been extinguished;

A. According to the Joseon River Decree (Ordinance No. 22, Jan. 22, 1927), even if private land becomes a river site, the private right to Posin land is not extinguished, and the private right is extinguished when it is recognized as a river area in accordance with the shipbuilding, the river age procedure.

(b) The previous private rights which have already been extinguished shall not be restored, even if the land upon which the private rights have already been extinguished is filled up thereafter;

(c) that if it is possible to restore the land to its original state without incurring excessive costs even after temporary elimination, the previous private rights to that land shall not be extinguished only to the land which is not a river zone;

Articles 1, 4, and 11 of the Joseon River Decree (Ordinance No. 2 of January 22, 1927), Article 211 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da6777 delivered on February 23, 1965, 67Nu163 delivered on April 23, 1968, and 64Da1951 delivered on March 30, 1965, and 67Da213 delivered on April 4, 1967, and 71Da2488 delivered on September 26, 1972

Applicant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant 1 and 10 others

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na2757 delivered on February 21, 1979

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the applicant.

The grounds for appeal by the appellant are also examined.

The fact that the land of this case was spread down in the middle half of 1940, and that it was lawfully established by the court below, and even if the court below's decision was examined by the records, it cannot be found that the court below erred by the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the process of supporting such facts.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the land of this case was 10,000 square meters and upper half of 1940, and that the previous private rights were all extinguished. However, according to Articles 1 and 4 of the Joseon River Decree (Ordinance No. 22, Jan. 22, 1927) which was enforced at the same time, the land of this case was 10,000,000 which was 20,000,000,000,000 were 17,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 were 16,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000).

Therefore, as seen earlier in the judgment of the court below, the permit does not eventually affect the conclusion of the judgment of this case.

On the other hand, even if the ex-post ploss upon which private rights have already been extinguished, the view that the previous private rights already extinguished should not be restored is maintained by the party members (see Supreme Court Decision 64Da1951, Mar. 30, 1965; Supreme Court Decision 67Da213, Apr. 4, 1967; Supreme Court Decision 67Da213, Apr. 4, 1967). In addition, even if the ex-post ploss are ex-post plosible, if the previous private rights on the land are not extinguished without excessive costs, it is applicable only to the land which is not a river area, and it is not appropriate in this case (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da2488, Sept. 26, 1972).

Therefore, the decision of the court below that dismissed the applicant's application is just and there is no argument in all.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. 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.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)