A. Whether the owner of a parcel of land incorporated into a river area by mutatis mutandis application pursuant to the designation and public notice of the river area may seek compensation for damages or return of unjust enrichment from the local government to which the management agency belongs (negative)

(b) River areas under the former River Act;

(c) Whether the bank installed by a third party from among river appurtenances under Article 2 (1) 2 (b) of the River Act, but for which the river management agency obtained the consent of the installer in order to manage them as river appurtenances, is included in the bank which serves as the basis for the exclusion area under item (c) of the same subparagraph (affirmative

(d) Whether the river site created by the bank constructed in a river before it is designated and announced as a river by the owner of the site other than the river management agency is excluded; and

A. If the land was legally incorporated into the river area of a river to which this provision applies mutatis mutandis due to the designation of a river, its name, and the publication of a section, the owner of the land cannot occupy and use the land unless the permission of possession was obtained from the Do governor, who is the management agency. Thus, even though the Do governor, who belongs to the Cheongnam-do, refused the application for the permission of possession by the owner as the river management agency, the owner of the land cannot claim compensation for damages in accordance with the procedure stipulated in Article 74 of the River Act in the event the owner suffered losses due to the incorporation into the river area, barring special circumstances, unless the owner gains the profits equivalent to the above occupation charges from the Defendant without any legal ground and thereby causes damages to the owner.

B. In the case of a river to which Article 10 of the River Act applies mutatis mutandis, Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 9 of the same Act, even if the name and the section are designated and publicly announced, only the section of a river which is a subordinate area of a river shall be determined at this time, and a river area which is a crossing area of a river shall be determined separately by the management agency pursuant to Article 12 of the former River Act (wholly amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 197), and in the current River Act, the Act recognizes itself as a certain area among the land within a river section, and the area falling under the above Article 2 (1) 2 (a) through (c) shall naturally be a river area except that designated pursuant to item (c) of the same subparagraph.

C. For the purpose of the land located on the side of the river from the bank to become the land excluded from the provisions of Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the current River Act, the bank must be installed by the river management agency or the person who is permitted or entrusted by the bank. However, in light of the fact that the bank as prescribed in item (c) and the embankment as a river appurtenances as prescribed in item (b) of the above item (c) do not have any reason to regard it differently, the bank obtains the consent of the installer in order to manage the bank as a river appurtenances, even if installed by the person other than the river management agency, shall be included in

D. In the event that the river management agency did not specify the river of this case since the designation of the river of this case and the announcement of the designation of the river of this case, the river of this case was constructed by the owner of a site who is not the river management agency, and even thereafter the management agency obtained the consent of the installer of the bank in order to manage the said bank as river appurtenances, and in the absence of proof, the river site resulting from the above bank shall not be deemed to fall under the exclusion of the river area of Article 2(1)2(c) of the River Act

A. Articles 74, 10, 25, 33, and 9(3)/B of the River Act / Article 12 of the former River Act (wholly amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 197), Article 2 of the River Act, and Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the River Act / Article 9(c) of the same Act. Article 2(1)2(b), (c), (c), 3, and (d) of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Nu535 Decided September 14, 1982 (Gong1982,1013) (Gong1982,1013). Na. 79Da812 Decided July 10, 197 (Gong1979,12073) decided July 21, 1987 (Gong1987,1401) decided December 20, 1988 (Gong1989,194) 86Da2802 Decided June 27, 1989 (Gong1989,1130)

Attorney Park Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Chungcheongnam-do, Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na1943 delivered on January 18, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff, a farmland improvement association, purchased the land of this case located on the river side with the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on February 8, 1954 as part of the implementation of the project, completed the registration of ownership transfer, and completed the embankment construction, and paid the fees for the use of the above land. The defendant is obliged to occupy and use the land of this case to the plaintiff as part of the designation and name of the river of this case applied mutatis mutandis on January 20, 1964, and the designation and name of the river of this case, which is the river area of this case applied mutatis mutandis by the Cheongnam-do Governor, the river of this case, which is the river area of this case applied mutatis mutandis by the public notice of the section, and without any justifiable reason, to the plaintiff, the above permission for use and use of the land of this case to the plaintiff's association members and the defendant's right to occupy and use the land of this case to the plaintiff in accordance with the law of 1982.

However, in order to occupy and use land within a river area, the permission from the management agency under Article 25 of the River Act shall be subject to criminal punishment under Article 8 of the same Act. On the other hand, the management agency may collect occupancy charges, etc. from the person who occupies or uses a river without permission under Article 33 of the same Act. The above provisions shall apply mutatis mutandis to the so-called quasi-river where there is no change in ownership within the river area under Article 10 of the same Act, and Article 9 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the so-called quasi-river where there is no change in ownership within the river area under Article 10 of the same Act. Thus, if the land in this case was legally incorporated within the river area of the river area of this case, the plaintiff who is the land owner cannot occupy and use the land unless the permission was obtained from the management agency, the management agency, and even if the management agency refused the plaintiff's application for occupancy and use as the river management agency under the jurisdiction of the defendant, the plaintiff can seek damages from the above land owner due to the above.

However, the court below determined that the above river area was incorporated into the above river area; however, the above river area was only the area of the river which is the subordinate area of the river, and the river area, which is the wider area of the river, was determined by the former River Act (wholly amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971; hereinafter the same shall apply) and it was determined and publicly announced by the management agency pursuant to Article 12 of the former River Act for the purpose of the aforementioned river area. Since the above river area was determined by the Mayor/Do governor to be applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 10 of the River Act and the above river area was not yet designated under Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the area corresponding to the above Article 10 of the River Act was naturally a river area, and since the river area was not yet designated under Article 2 (1) 2 (a) through (c) of the former River Act for the purpose of the above river area, and there was no other evidence that the river area was designated by the management agency.

Therefore, in a case where the Cheongnam-do governor, who belongs to the Defendant, collected the occupation fees of the vehicle in question from a third party and incurred damages equivalent to the above amount from the Plaintiff while excluding the Plaintiff’s possession of the said land by the managing agency of the instant river, this is an unfounded benefit and has a duty to return unjust gains to the Plaintiff. Thus, even if the court below collected occupation fees in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the River Act, it would be erroneous for the Defendant to have explained that the Cheongbuk-do governor, who belongs to the Defendant, had the duty to return unjust gains to the Defendant, even if he collected the occupation fees in question from the Defendant according to the procedures prescribed in the River Act

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)