It is difficult to say that this land was naturally a site of a river subject to this Act without any administrative procedures, because this land was in fact in the same form as the river site due to flood, and this land became a site of a river subject to this Act.

It is difficult to say that this land is naturally a site of a river subject to this Act without any administrative procedures, because this land was in fact in the same form of a river site due to flood, and this land became a site of a river subject to this Act without any administrative procedures.

Article 3 of the River Act, Article 245 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Defendant-Counterclaim (Attorney Choi Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 71Na378, 379 decided July 18, 1972

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

As to each of the grounds of appeal by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff,

According to the reasoning of the judgment by the court below, according to the defendant's assertion and the testimony by the non-party 1 of the first instance trial witness, it can be acknowledged that the land of this case was in fact in two forms like flood after August 15, 200, and the defendant did so with the permission of the government. Considering the result of the verification in the first and the second instance trial, it is recognized that the river flowing side of the land of this case is subject to the River Act, so it is reasonable to view that the defendant's intent to take possession of the above cleared land is not the intention of using the public river site, but it is recognized that the defendant's intention to take possession of the land of this case is not the intention of possession, and it is not the witness's 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4's testimony, etc., and it is not the time when the defendant commenced possession of the land of this case, but the fact that the land of this case was traded with the non-party 5, the plaintiff's punishment of this case.

However, since the flowing river of this case is a river subject to the River Act, which is the river subject to the application of the River Act, and the land of this case was in fact identical with the river site due to flood, it cannot naturally become the site of the river subject to the River Act without any administrative special procedure. According to the facts recognized by the original judgment, as long as the plaintiff entered into a sale and purchase contract with the deceased non-party 5 and developed it, it cannot be concluded that the intention to possess it is merely the intention to use the public river site and merely it cannot be decided as the intention to own it, and it cannot be concluded that the defendant non-party 1, the first instance court witness, and the part of the non-party 1, the original judgment, and the original judgment, which recognized the date of preparation of the evidence evidence No. 1, were established, and it is difficult to conclude that the defendant Lessee did not have any error in the misapprehension of the legal reasoning of the judgment as to the plaintiff's right to represent the land as a result of the plaintiff's non-party 5 and the plaintiff's non-party 1, as the original judgment acknowledged.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) shall have jurisdiction over the red net leaves