[1] The meaning of deprivation which is the cause of loss of land ownership, and the standard for determining whether it is impossible to restore land to original state, which is the requirement for recognition

[2] The case where the private right to spawn land under the Joseon River Decree (Ordinance No. 2 of January 22, 1927) and the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of January 19, 197) ceases to exist

[3] The validity of the public notice of recognition of river areas under the public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation under the former River Act

[4] In a case where a land which has come into a river designated as a state-owned river under the Cabinet Order at the time of the public notice of the construction division under the former River Act shows the nature of the criteria for recognition of a river area as a state-owned river area under the public notice of the construction division, whether the land becomes a state-owned land (affirmative), and if the land so discovered becomes up, whether the previous owner acquires the ownership again (negative)

[5] The meaning of the benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of an administrative disposition

[6] The case holding that in case where an owner of the land filled up as a result of the reclamation of public waters sought nullification of the above dispositions on the ground that the said land was not public waters at the time of the disposition for reclamation license and the authorization for completion of reclamation work, there was no benefit of confirmation on the ground that the said land was reverted to the state as it had the nature of the river at the time of the public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 897 of Jun. 1, 1964, and that there was no benefit of confirmation on the ground that the previous ownership was not restored to its original state even

[1] The "gree which is the cause of loss of land ownership" refers to the time when the land collapses into the sea or the river to which the sea water or the river to which the application is made so that it is impossible to restore it to its original state, and whether it is impossible to restore it to its original state shall be determined by comparing the expenses to be incurred in the restoration to its original state, the economic value due to the restoration of the land, etc., with the comparison of the expenses to be incurred in the restoration to its original state, and the economic value due to the restoration to its original state, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the restoration to its original state was impossible by social norms unless there are special circumstances, and whether it is possible to restore to its original state to its original state shall be determined at the time of spreading. Thus, there is no room to consider the subsequent circumstances, barring any special circumstances.

[2] Under Article 2, Article 4, and Article 12 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 197), even if a private land becomes a river site, it does not lose the private right to such a river site, and even if a private land becomes a river site, it does not lose the private right to such a river site, and as a private right is extinguished when a river area is recognized as a river area in accordance with the shipbuilding and river age procedure, it cannot be deemed that the previous private right to such a land has been extinguished on the sole ground of the fact that such a private right has come into existence. However, according to Articles 2, 4, and 12 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 197), even if it is a land below the former state-owned river under the same Act, if the name and a section of a river are designated as a state-owned river under the same Act, and the management agency's recognition and public notice of a river area, the land belongs to that.

[3] Article 12 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 292 of Jan. 19, 1971) and Article 8-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1753 of Dec. 16, 1963), "the case of recognition of the area of a river managed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation of Jun. 1, 1964" under Article 12 of the former River Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1753 of Dec. 16, 1963), "the area of a river in which sewage flows continuously, such land and topography as the area of a river in which sewage flows continuously, and the area of a river in which sewage flows in a considerable quantity at least twice a year as a river area." The public announcement of recognition of a river area under the above public announcement is a temporary measure until related drawings are maintained until the determination of a river area under the proviso of Article 12 of the former River Act, and the said public announcement does not affect the relevant river area.

[4] At the time of June 1, 1964 when the public notice of the above construction division was given, where the name and the section of a state-owned river fall into a river designated as a state-owned river, and where the above public notice of construction division shows the nature of the land as stipulated in paragraph (1) of the above public notice of construction division, the land shall be owned by the State at the time of June 1, 1964, and the previous private right to the land shall be extinguished, and the previous owner shall not be again entitled to acquire the ownership even if the land is re-established, and the issue of whether the cadastral record, such as the registry, exists, does not affect the judgment on the extinguishment of the previous ownership.

[5] In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of an administrative disposition, there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, it is necessary and appropriate to confirm the existence of the legal relationship by judgment as the plaintiff's right or legal status is unstable and dangerous. Thus, if there is no plaintiff's right, and even if it is judged, there is no possibility of recovery of the right, the plaintiff's lawsuit for confirmation has no interest in confirmation.

[6] The case holding that in case where an owner of the land filled up as a result of the reclamation of public waters sought nullification of the above dispositions on the ground that the said land was not a public water surface at the time of the disposition for reclamation license and the authorization for completion of reclamation work, the previous private right was extinguished on the ground that the said land was reverted to the state as it had the nature of the river at the time of the notification of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 897 of June 1, 1964, and that there was no benefit of confirmation on the ground that the previous ownership was not restored to its original state even after

[1] Articles 2, 3, 4, and 12 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 292 of Jan. 19, 1971); Articles 187 and 211 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 2, 3, 4, and 12 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 197); Article 11 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 197 of Dec. 30, 196); Article 18 of the former Enforcement Decree of the River Act (amended by Act No. 297 of Dec. 19, 197); Article 16 of the former Enforcement Decree of the River Act (amended by Act No. 1975 of Dec. 30, 1961); Article 16 of the former Enforcement Decree of the River Act (amended by Act No. 1974 of Dec. 29, 197) / [3] Article 196 of the former River Act

[1] Supreme Court Decisions 91Da31562 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong192, 153), 84Da1098 delivered on November 27, 198 (Gong1989, 297, 2997, 2997, 2997, 2997, 2997, 2997, 3697, 297, 2997, 297, 297, 2969, 297, 397, 297, 2969, 297, 297, 297, 369, 297, 297, 396, 297, 297, 397, 200.

Plaintiff

Seoul Regional Construction Administration

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu16971 delivered on January 16, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Summary of the judgment below

The lower court, on August 2, 190, found that each of the instant construction works was registered under the name of the Plaintiff at least 1,50 square meters on the Gyeonggi-gun ( Address 1 omitted) and that (No. 2), 32,562 square meters on the said (hereinafter “instant land”) was located at least 1,700 square meters on the instant land for which the construction was completed at least 1,70 square meters on August 2, 190, and was located at least 1,700 square meters on the instant land for which the construction was completed at least 1,70 square meters on the instant land for which the construction was completed at least 9,700 square meters on the instant land for which the construction was completed at least 1,600 square meters on the instant land for which the construction was completed at least 1,700 square meters on the instant land for which the construction was completed at least 1,600 square meters on the surface of the instant land for which the construction was located at least 1,6000 square meters on the instant land.

Furthermore, with respect to the Plaintiff’s filing of the suit in this case seeking confirmation of invalidity of each of the above dispositions on the ground that the pertinent land was not public waters at the time of the disposition for reclamation license and completion of reclamation work, in light of the fact that the land was spread in the mid-1940s and continued to exist in the state of the river area for not less than 20 years since it was spread in the mid-1940s, the court below deemed that it was virtually impossible to restore the current large scale equipment and personnel as it was impossible to restore the land, and further, as the name and section was designated as state-owned river under No. 1225 of the Decree No. 1225 of April 1, 1963, the Plaintiff’s existing private right to the land in this case was entirely extinguished on the ground that the ownership of the previous land was not at least 9,000,000 won, and thus, the registration of the land in this case was null and void as a state-owned river area’s name and 16, respectively.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. The "gree which is the cause of loss of land ownership" refers to the time when the land collapses into the sea or the applied river and its restoration to its original state is impossible, and whether it is impossible to restore it to its original state should be determined by comparing the expenses to be incurred in the restoration to its original state, the economic value due to the restoration of the land, etc. as at the time of the spread. In addition, in a case where the cost of restoration to its original state is more than the land value after the restoration to its original state, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the restoration to its original state was impossible by social norms, barring any special circumstance, and whether it is possible to restore to its original state should be determined as at the time of the spread of the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da25209, Dec. 13, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 95Da18609, Aug. 25, 195). 209, etc.

In addition, under the former Enforcement Decree of the River Act (Ordinance No. 2, Jan. 2, 1927), even if the land was a state-owned river site, its private right is extinguished if it is recognized as a river area in accordance with the shipbuilding and River Decree. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the previous private right has been extinguished solely on the ground that the land was captured (see Supreme Court Decisions 64Da677, Feb. 23, 1965; 67Nu163, Apr. 23, 1968; 79Da726, Aug. 28, 1979). The former Enforcement Decree of the River Act (amended by Act No. 292, Jan. 19, 197; Ordinance No. 1965, Feb. 16, 200; Ordinance No. 1965, Feb. 16, 206).

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the court below recognized that the land of this case was laid down for not less than 20 years since the development of the land in the middle half of the 1940s and continued to be in the state of the river area, and continued to be in the state of the river area at the time of June 1, 1964 through the reclamation work of the public waters of this case and the construction work of a tide embankment of the Nasan River at the time of the time of the June 1, 1964. Thus, the name and the part of the river area were designated as a state-owned river under the Decree No. 1225 of April 1, 1963 and the public notice of the construction section No. 897 of June 1, 1964, the previous private right on the land of this case was permanently extinguished due to the fall, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the ownership transfer of the land of this case as it did not affect the validity of the river area of this case as the plaintiff's ground of appeal.

B. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of an administrative disposition, there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relation subject to confirmation, and thereby, it is necessary and appropriate to confirm the existence of the legal relation by judgment as the plaintiff's right or legal status is unstable and dangerous. Thus, the plaintiff's right does not exist, and even if it is judged, if there is no possibility that the right can be recovered even if it is judged, the plaintiff's lawsuit for confirmation does not have the interest of confirmation.

However, since the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name on the instant land becomes null and void, it is not due to the reclamation license of the instant public waters and the disposition of the authorization of completion of reclamation works, but due to the fact that the instant land was in the nature of the river area at the time of the public notice of the above construction schedule on June 1, 1964, and thus, the instant land was reverted to the State and the previous private right was extinguished. As seen above, even if each of the instant dispositions is confirmed to be null and void, it is clear that the Plaintiff’s ownership on the instant land cannot be restored.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because the previous ownership is not restored to its original condition after receiving a favorable judgment on the confirmation of nullity of each disposition of this case's domestic affairs. Thus, it is just to conclude that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, mistake of evidence preparation, misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in confirmation, etc.

C. In addition, various grounds of appeal purporting that each of the dispositions of this case is null and void on the grounds that the land is not land subject to each of the dispositions of this case, or that it is not land subject to any change of administrative district or overlaps with cadastral map or duplicate registration, etc., the court below's rejection of the lawsuit of this case without deciding on the ground that there is no interest in the lawsuit of this case on the ground that the court below judged that there is no interest in the lawsuit of this case due to lack of ownership

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and 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 Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)