beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. The plaintiffs' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s 506 No. 506 of the Gyeonggi-si PP (hereinafter “instant land”) was the land for which Q, the fleet of the Plaintiffs was determined.
B. Since the instant land was incorporated into the R river area, which is a river managed by the Defendant, and owned by the State, the Defendant is obligated to pay compensation for losses to the Plaintiffs, the inheritor of Q Q, pursuant to Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into the River.
2. The determination of the former River Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5893, Feb. 8, 199; hereinafter “former River Act”) provides that “The provisions of the River Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to local second-class rivers (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 16535, Aug. 9, 199) under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.” Article 9(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the River Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 16535, Aug. 9, 199) lists the provisions of the former River Act applicable mutatis mutandis to local second-class rivers (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 16535, Aug. 9, 199; excluding Article 3 of the former River Act concerning nationalization. Thus, even if land owned by an individual is incorporated into a site of local second-class river (wholly amended by Act
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Du15597 delivered on March 15, 2001, etc.). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in the Evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the serial numbers), the instant land is recognized as being incorporated into the river area of R, which is a local second-class river.
According to the above legal principles, even if the land of this case was incorporated into a R river area which is a local second-class river, it cannot be deemed nationalized and its private ownership shall not be extinguished. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion based on the premise that the land of this case was nationalized is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.