A person liable for compensation under Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the River Act ( December 31, 1984)

In a lawsuit seeking compensation for losses under Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the River Act ( December 31, 1984), the State or a local government, which is the subject of rights belonging to the river management authority, shall be the defendants. According to the provisions of Article 11 of the same Act and Article 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the management authority of Han River concerning the section not falling under the section managed by the competent Do governor,

Article 11 of the River Act, Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the same Act, Article 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420 delivered on December 10, 1991 (Gong1992,477) 92Da25533 delivered on October 9, 1992 (Gong192,315) 93Da62157 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong194Sang);

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Chang-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na48699 delivered on December 8, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the land of this case in the judgment of the court below was state-owned by "the case where the Minister of Construction and Transportation recognized a river area managed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation on June 1, 1964" under Article 12 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 197), which was a part of the water flow of Han River from August 31, 1985, which affected the flow of the Han River from August 31, 197 to the construction of the embankment and the filling-up construction of the Han River. Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the River Act amended by Act No. 3782 of Dec. 31, 1984, which was enacted by Act No. 2292 of Dec. 14, 197, and thus dismissed the plaintiff's claim for compensation from the river area of this case as stipulated in Article 12 (1) of the Addenda of the River Act.

In the case of a lawsuit seeking compensation for loss under Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the River Act, the State or a local government, which is the subject of rights belonging to the management agency of a river, shall be the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da25533 delivered on October 9, 192). Article 11 of the River Act provides that "river shall be managed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation." Article 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the River Act provides that "the river designated by the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall be managed by the competent Do governor." In accordance with the delegation of the proviso of Article 11 of the River Act, Article 11-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the River Act provides that "the river managed by the Do governor pursuant to the proviso of Article 11 of the Act is the same as attached Table 2." According to the above attached Table 2, the Han River Act provides that only the section managed by the competent Do governor from the Hanyang-gun river starting point (Seoul-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun-gun, Seocheon-do) to the river area.

Therefore, the obligation to compensate for losses due to the fact that the instant land belonging to the Han River basin, a directly owned by the State (the party to the claim for compensation of the instant land is determined by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, which is the competent authority at the time, and the defendant is not the defendant). The Plaintiff’s claim in this case premised on the defendant’s obligation is without merit. Even if the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 2 of the Addenda of the River Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, it is justified in the conclusion of the court below dismissing the appeal on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless, and it is not necessary to determine the legitimacy of the judgment below.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)