Effect of a reclamation license or authorization of reclamation completion for public waters incorporated into national miscellaneous property under the disuse;

Public waters can not be disposed of unless they are incorporated into miscellaneous property by abolition of their use, and even if they were incorporated into miscellaneous property, reclamation license or authorization of completion is an invalid disposition.

Article 13 of the State Property Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and two others

Mineyang Land Improvement Cooperatives

Gwangju District Court Decision 66Na319, 323 delivered on December 20, 1966

We reverse the part against the plaintiffs in the original judgment.

This case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal:

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below determined as follows. In other words, it can be recognized that the plaintiffs occupied the land of the original public waters which was originally public waters from the government to the government without obtaining a legitimate reclamation license, used it as salt farm, and cultivated it by reclaiming it as farmland, and they purchased the land from the government of January 17, 1959 to the plaintiffs on May 7, 1965, and acquired the ownership transfer registration under the plaintiffs' name. However, although the Mineyang Land Improvement Cooperatives, the supplementary participant of the defendant, obtained a legitimate reclamation license and completed the reclamation and authorization for the completion of the reclamation, the plaintiffs did not raise any objection to the above reclamation license against the supplementary participant of the defendant, and since there was a reclamation authorization without the cancellation of the intervenor's reclamation authorization, the plaintiffs did not have any possession of the public waters of the original land and purchased part of the land after purchasing it from the government. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the reclamation license for the plaintiffs was null and void.

As the public waters are so-called natural public objects for public use and themselves are directly used for public use, it is not possible to dispose of them unless they are incorporated into a state-owned miscellaneous property by disuse of use for public use, and even if public waters were reclaimed without any authority and used as farmland without any authority, unless they have been incorporated into a state-owned miscellaneous property. However, even if they were to be incorporated into a state-owned miscellaneous property by disuse of use for public use and then were to be incorporated into a state-owned miscellaneous property by public use, such disposition may not be deemed null and void.

Therefore, in this case, the court below should consider and decide whether to approve the plaintiff's purchase of the land of this case, which was originally used as the public waters by the plaintiff as the salt farm, should be abolished at the time that the plaintiff purchased the land from the head of the tax office and incorporate it into the state-owned miscellaneous property and sell it to the plaintiffs. However, without taking such measures, the court below decided that the sale and purchase of the land to the plaintiffs was null and void as it was after the plaintiff's reclamation license for the public waters against the defendant joining the defendant. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the public waters and incomplete deliberation, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the other reasons for appeal, and the decision of the court below should be reversed

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-dong Gyeong-dong