Whether the second reclamation licensee’s return of unjust enrichment on the completion of construction by using the construction result of the original reclamation licensee’s construction (affirmative)

Even if the reclamation license of public waters becomes null and void because it was impossible for the Plaintiff to complete the construction within the designated construction period, if it was restored to the original state or exempted from the duty to restore it, and if it was not taken any national measures to nationalize facilities, etc. within the construction execution area, it still belongs to the Plaintiff’s right, and if the Defendant completed the construction by using the result of the construction of the reclamation work to be done by the Defendant after obtaining a new license for reclamation of public waters, and acquired the ownership of the reclaimed land by obtaining a completion authorization, it shall be deemed that the Defendant

Article 741 of the Civil Act, Articles 25 and 26 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Reclamation Act

Plaintiff 1 and 28 others

Mapo-si and one other

Gwangju High Court Decision 82Na16 delivered on December 17, 1982

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the land recorded in the list No. 1 of the attached Table No. 1 (the annexed Table of the judgment of the court below; hereinafter the same shall apply) obtained a reclamation license from the former Do governor to December 31 of 1964 of the same year and the land recorded in the list No. 1 through No. 7 of the attached Table No. 1 of the attached Table No. 1 on June 13, 1962 and 36 including the plaintiff No. 1,24,5,7 through 29 and the non-party No. 33 et al. of the attached Table No. al. 1 of the same year were constructed with the completion period of construction from the former Do governor to be no more than December 31 of the same year, 1964, but the above two reclamation license was completed within the completion period of construction, and the plaintiffs' claim that the reclamation license of the attached Table No. 1 was no more necessary to recover the land to its original state. 263.

2. The so-called unjust gains shall be returned without any legal cause by any person who causes losses to another person due to the property or labor of another person and thereby causes losses to the latter. Meanwhile, Article 26 (2) of the Public Waters Reclamation Act provides that if the Minister of Construction and Transportation is exempted from the duty of restoration upon the invalidation of the reclamation license of public waters, he shall own the facilities or other things on the public waters in the area where the reclamation is executed, and Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Reclamation Act provides that the licensing authority shall notify the owner or possessor of the time when the location is reverted to the State pursuant to Article 26 (2) of the Act. This provision provides that if the licensing authority intends to revert the facilities or other things to the State, the completed parts, goods, etc. in the execution area of the reclamation license shall still belong to the reclamation licensee, as a natural rule, and shall still be removed or collected from this obligation.

Therefore, even if the reclamation license of this case was invalidated because the plaintiff et al. failed to complete the construction within the construction completion period, if it was returned to the original state in accordance with the procedure under the Public Waters Reclamation Act, or exempted from the duty to restore it, and if it did not take any national measures to nationalize the utility facilities, goods, etc. in the construction execution area, it still belongs to the rights of the plaintiff et al., and if the defendant et al. completed the construction by using the result of the reclamation work that the plaintiff et al. newly obtained a license for reclamation of public waters and acquired the ownership of the land after obtaining the authorization of completion, it is the principle of equity, and the defendant et al.

3. If the plaintiff et al. did not restore facilities, goods, etc. to the original state after the effect of the reclamation license, as a result of the construction work conducted in the public waters reclamation license zone, and if the plaintiff et al. did not restore to the original state, the court below should have deliberated and judged whether nationalization measures were taken, and whether the defendant et al. acquired the ownership of the reclaimed land by obtaining a license or authorization for completion of reclamation of public waters, and should have followed the duty to return unjust enrichment to the defendant et al. by examining and determining whether the defendant et al. would have obtained the ownership of the reclaimed land. However, in this case where the reclamation license of the plaintiff et al. was invalidated due to the lapse of the completion period without any deliberation as to this point, even if the reclamation license of the plaintiff et al. was extinguished, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the reclaimed part is the ownership of the plaintiff et al.,

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)