(a) Whether there exists a distinction between embankments and waterproof systems under the River Act;

(b) Non-performance of river areas;

A. As long as the River Act does not distinguish between embankments and waterproof systems from the River Act, the application of the law may not vary by distinguishing them.

(b) Even if a country whose river area is more than the river area has made an ownership transfer registration under the name of the person who was left by the individual, this is null and void, and therefore there is no choice of state-owned land in question.

Article 20 of the State Property Act and Article 2 (1) 3 of the River Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Da1346 delivered on October 31, 1972

Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The legal representative of the Republic of Korea and the Minister of Justice's subordinate deeds, Kim Young-young

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na29 delivered on August 25, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

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

According to the court below's decision, 192, 192, 1920, and 1925, were designated as a direct river in accordance with the current Act and subordinate statutes in a certain period of time, and was destroyed since Gyeonggi-do, which had been a management agency, extended the number of banks to the river area of 1932 after obtaining subsidies from the National Treasury, and the construction of a bank was completed in 14.1 meters from the height of the bank, and even if the construction of a bank was completed in 1932, it was 14.1 meters from the river area of 1,000, and it was 1,000,000,000 from the Han River area of 2,000,0000, which was located within a certain area of the river area of 1,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000 more than 1,000,000).

In other words, it has been pointed out that the public health room and the new law stipulate that all banks are unique and installed by the river management agency or by the person who is permitted or delegated by the river management agency as to the determination of the river area as a non-permanent area should be premised on the proper bank, so it is not reasonable for the court below to hold that the private land is a flood control system in which a natural bank is naturally removed, as it is based on the premise that the natural bank is a flood control system.

Even according to the appraisal result of Eul 1-7 (1) photographs, Eul 1-7 (4) photographs, Eul 11-7 (4) photographs, and ○○○○○○○○○○○○, an appraiser for the lower court’s trial cited as the essay, the facts that the plaintiff had not shown the original bank as it was can be recognized, but there is no data to deem that the fact that the plaintiff was unable to carry out the room of the bank at all at all, because the river width was somewhat narrow, since the land price of this case was urbanized by urbanization and the dumping and burial of waste coming from the population density.

In addition, the fact that this land has changed into a site after the reconstruction work is a problem as a desolate river site under Article 77 of the River Act, and there is no relationship with the criteria for determining river areas.

Ultimately, the court below did not determine only the historical connection of the number of rivers, but recognized the continuous construction of the bank, and held that part of the land is the site of the bank and the remaining land is the land which indicates the volume of sewage to flow or the volume of sewage to flow in a considerable amount of time twice a year.

In addition, the author argues that there is no a flood control system on the land of this case by distinguishing a bank from a flood control system, but as long as it does not distinguish a bank from a flood control system under the River Act, it cannot be applied by the law by distinguishing it, and as seen earlier, it is reasonable to conclude that a bank is constructed on the land of this case. Therefore, the argument that a bank cannot be viewed as a bank if it is combined with a bank, is without merit.

The grounds of appeal are alleged to the effect that there was no evidence to acknowledge the lawful river flow with a considerable amount of time not less than 1,2 times every year. However, if the high-water site was not formed between the bank site and the waterway, such as this case’s land, and the lower court’s order was connected to the bank site adjacent to the parallel surface of the bank site, even if the high-water level measurement result for 30 years was not compared and analyzed, it can be determined with geographical conditions and ordinary experience, or by a considerable amount of time not less than 1,2 times every year. Thus, the lower court’s determination on the above facts is justifiable based on its reasoning, and even if the land was designated as a river area with a total of 1,30 years old River Decree and its total river area, it does not affect the State-owned land without the consent of the lower court for a specific period of 1,50 years old river area and its total of 1,50 years old river area (this case’s river area’s 1,500-year river area).

Justices Kang Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)