The Minister of Construction and Transportation shall make a public announcement on the approval of the river area under the proviso of Article 12 of the former River Act.

The public notice on the recognition of river area by the Minister of Construction and Transportation as to June 1, 1964 under the proviso of Article 12 of the former River Act is valid as the public notice on the recognition of river area is given inasmuch as there exist no specific indications on the parcel number or area in accordance with the above recognition and public notice, since it is objectively obvious situations whether certain land continues to flow.

The proviso to Article 12 of the former River Act, Article 8-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 897 of the Construction Division, Article 3 of the River Act

Plaintiff (the deceased Nonparty’s property heir) Attorney Lee Jae-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea's legal representative shall award the litigation performer's lighting, strawing, strawing, strawing and strawing.

Seoul High Court Decision 75Na3054 delivered on February 18, 1977

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

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

The Minister of Construction and Transportation shall recognize and publicly announce the area of a river, including the Han River basin, under Article 8-2 of the former River Act (Law No. 1475, Dec. 5, 1963) and the proviso of Article 12 of the former River Act (Ordinance No. 1753, Dec. 16, 1963), which was enforced at the time when the Minister of Construction and Transportation recognized and announced the area of a river under his management, including the Han River basin as the Construction 164 Public Notice No. 897, Jun. 1, 1964, as well as the area of a river under his management, (1) the land and topography on which the flowing water has continuously flow, the upper sea of a grassland, and other parts on which sewage has been flowed with a considerable quantity at least 1,2,00 times a year (excluding the land temporarily representing its upper sea by flood or other natural phenomena); (2) the area of the land which is the site of a river appurtenances; and (3) the area of the land excluded from the area of the preceding land.

However, the recognition and public notice of the river area of the above Minister of Construction and Transportation is a provisional measure until the relevant drawing concerning the determination of the river area under the proviso of Article 12 of the former River Act is maintained. This recognized area is clear that it belongs to the standard scope of the recognition of the river area under Article 8-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and it is the land where certain land continues to flow and sewage is affected by sewage according to the above recognition and public notice. Whether it falls under the site of river appurtenances or the so-called excluded area belongs to an objective and obvious situation that interested parties can understand, in light of the fact that the public notice of this recognition falls under the objective situation where it is possible for them to know, it shall not be deemed that there is no reason to affect the validity of the recognition of the river area only

Therefore, the court below determined that the above recognition notice does not have the form and effect of the public notice on the grounds that the number of lots or zones was not specified in the public notice, even though the court below recognized that part of the land in this case was in the past, but rejected the defendant's assertion that the land in this case was owned by the State in accordance with Article 3 of the River Act on the basis of the fact that the current flow of flowing water was not specified due to the bank works implemented by the Water Resources Development Corporation, while the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of the River Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)