[1] Whether the person claiming compensation should be the owner at the time of incorporation of the incorporated land into the river area or his successor in order to be eligible for compensation by the river management agency (affirmative)

[2] Interpretation of the criteria for appraisal of compensation amount under Article 6 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for Compensation for Land Incorporated into Rivers

[1] According to Article 2(1) and (4) of the former Addenda of the River Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5893 of Feb. 8, 199) (wholly amended by Act No. 5893 of Dec. 31, 1984), Article 2(3) of the former Addenda of the River Act (amended by Act No. 3782 of Dec. 31, 1984), “the provision on the compensation for land incorporated into a river under Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended River Act” (repealed by Article 2 of Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into a River Area for which the extinctive prescription of a claim for compensation under Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended River Act (Act No. 16767 of Mar. 28, 200) is applicable to the owner or his successor at the time when the claimant was incorporated

[2] Article 6(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into a River provides that “The appraisal of compensation shall take into account the land category and land use status as at the time of incorporation, restrictions under the public law on the pertinent land, current land use status, and arm’s length price of neighboring land similar to the current situation at the time of incorporation, etc.” In a case where “the land category and land use status as at the time of incorporation” and “current land use status” are different, there seems to be a conflict between the evaluation criteria applicable in the case of each other. However, in the former River Act, which was wholly amended by Act No. 2292 on January 19, 1971, it did not stipulate any compensation provision on land naturally subject to the river area due to its enforcement, but it is reasonable to interpret the said provision to the effect that the land category and land use status should be determined based on the “land category and land use status as at the time of incorporation” as an exception, in principle, at the time of incorporation.

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the former River Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5893 of Feb. 8, 199) (wholly amended by Act No. 4161 of Dec. 31, 1984), Article 2 (1) and (4) of the former Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4161 of Dec. 30, 1989) (wholly amended by Act No. 4161 of Dec. 30), Article 2 of the former Act on the Compensation for Land Incorporated into a River under Article 2 of the Addenda of the Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 16767 of Mar. 28, 200) (wholly amended by Act No. 16782 of Feb. 31, 199), Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the former Act on the Compensation for Land Incorporated into a River / [2] Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Special Measures for the Compensation for Land Incorporated into a River, Article 13 (wholly amended by Act)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da52496 delivered on May 30, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2007) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da30445 delivered on September 25, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2340)

See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm, Attorneys Go Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gyeonggi-do (Law Firm Efficawon, Attorneys Choi Jung-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu2203 decided December 2, 2014

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion about legitimate claimant for compensation for losses

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the non-party's claim for compensation for the transfer of ownership to the non-party's land under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, invalidation, hereinafter "Special Measures Act"), on or around March 23, 1979, since the registration of ownership preservation was cancelled on May 22, 1984, the non-party, the title holder of the registration of ownership preservation, was included in the river area as a state-owned property before December 1, 1978, and the content of incorporation into the river area was entered in the Han River Ledger Island map prepared around December 1, 1978, and the non-party's claim for compensation for the transfer of ownership to the non-party's land under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership, etc. (Act No. 3094, Dec. 31, 197; hereinafter "the non-party's claim for compensation for the transfer of ownership to the non-party

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, such judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legitimate claimant for compensation, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In particular, in the case where the previous owner transferred State-owned land upon incorporation of river area and completed the registration of transfer of ownership transfer under the name of the transferee, the registration of ownership preservation has the validity of transfer of the previous owner's claim for compensation. Therefore, the non-party's assertion that the non-party is the legitimate claimant for compensation cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal due to the first argument at the court of final appeal. Further, even if the previous owner sold the land of this case to the non-party, the sale of the land owned by the State-owned as part of river area cannot be the object of transaction between the private parties, such sale is null and void as a contract aimed at providing the non-party with the original purpose of benefits. Moreover, the claim for compensation for damages as to the land of this case was not accepted under Article 37 of the Addenda of the River Act.

2. As to the assertion regarding reimbursement to quasi-Possessor of the claim

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the non-party's claim for the payment of the non-party's claim against the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's claim against the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's claim against the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's claim against the non-party's non-party's non-party's claim against the non-party's non-party's claim against the non-party's non-party's claim against the non-party's non-party's claim against the non-party's claim against the non-party's non-party's claim against the non-party's claim against the non-party's claim against the non-party's claim against the non-party's claim against the non-party'

B. According to Article 2(1) and (4) of the Addenda of the River Act (Act No. 3782 of Dec. 31, 1984), Article 2 of the Addenda of the River Act (Act No. 3782 of Dec. 31, 1984), the provision on the compensation for land incorporated into a river under Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended River Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11919 of Jun. 12, 1986) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11919 of Jun. 12, 1986) and Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Addenda of the amended River Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16767 of Mar. 28,

However, according to the above legal principles, since the registration of preservation of ownership in this case was completed after the land was incorporated into a river area, it is difficult to deem that there was a legitimate appearance to believe that the registered titleholder has a legitimate authority to exercise the right to claim compensation. Unless there are other circumstances to deem that the registered titleholder falls under the owner at the time of incorporation into the river area or the successor, the non-party cannot be deemed to fall under the quasi-Possessor of the above claim for compensation.

C. Nevertheless, it is inappropriate for the court below to determine whether the Defendant’s payment of compensation constitutes a repayment to quasi-Possessors who have the right to claim compensation, and it constitutes a case where the Defendant acted in good faith and without negligence. However, since the Defendant’s payment of compensation was negligent, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that the payment of compensation has no validity as repayment to quasi-Possessors of the claim. In so determining, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the repayment to quasi-Possessors of the

3. As to the assertion regarding the scope of compensation for losses

Article 6(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land incorporated into a River provides that “The appraisal of compensation shall take into account the land category and land use status at the time of incorporation, the restrictions under the public law on the relevant land, the current status of land use, and the arm’s length price of neighboring land similar to the former one at the time of incorporation.” However, the former River Act amended by Act No. 2292 on January 19, 1971 does not stipulate any compensation provision as to the land subject to a river area as a matter of course by its implementation, but it conforms to the general legal principles on the compensation, such as “the land category and land use status at the time of incorporation,” and “the current status of land use status at the time of incorporation,” and “the current status of land use status at the time of incorporation into a river area,” and it is reasonable to interpret the aforementioned provision as “the current status of land use status at the time of incorporation into a river area at the time of incorporation into a river.”

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the first instance court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and since the land use status at the time of incorporation into the river area of each of the instant land, it cannot be known at the time of incorporation into the river area, the assessed value calculated

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the judgment below affected the conclusion of the judgment or exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and there

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed by the assent of all participating Justices. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)