(a) A person who has obtained permission to construct a building on the building and ownership of the reclaimed land after completing the shore construction work by obtaining permission to occupy and use rivers;

(b) Right of a person who has obtained permission to reclaim public waters;

(a) In the case of permission for occupation and use of rivers, it is not authorized to reclaim public waters, and it is not authorized by a non-licensed person to confirm the act of reclamation within the discretion of the administrative agency

B. It cannot be said that a license for completion of reclamation cannot be deemed to have been granted even if construction of a bank building was completed and a building permit was obtained on that ground with permission for occupation and use of rivers. Moreover, even if construction of a bank bank constitutes a so-called reclamation as stated in this Act, it is obvious that it would be merely a reclamation work conducted without a reclamation license. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot acquire the ownership of the bank bank unless there is ratification by the competent local minister.

Articles 1, 4, 5, 22, 24, 36, 50 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, Article 4 of the River Decree

Salpers

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 61Do148 delivered on September 27, 1962

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the plaintiff's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 of the plaintiff's ground of appeal and No. 2 of the plaintiff's second ground of appeal, the plaintiff's plaintiff's ground of appeal obtained permission to occupy and use the river under the name of no. Y. The plaintiff's ground of appeal that the plaintiff's construction work for this case was done with permission to occupy and use the river under the name of no. Y. The plaintiff's ground of appeal that he obtained permission to occupy and use the river under the name of no. 5 of the law and changed the name of the above land under the name of no. Y. It is nothing more than that the plaintiff's ground of appeal that he obtained permission to occupy and use the river under the name of no. Y. The plaintiff's ground of appeal that he obtained permission to reclaim part of the land of this case and constructed a building with permission to construct a building on the ground of this case's ground, and thus, the plaintiff's application to reclaim the land for this purpose should not be obtained under the law of no. 3.

(2) The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 4 and the Plaintiff’s agent’s ground of appeal No. 1

(1) The gist of the grounds of appeal that do not overlap with the above (1) is that a person who has obtained permission to occupy and use a river under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport as a right holder of public waters, comprehensively taking into account Articles 1, 4, and 5 of the above Reclamation Act and Article 4 of the above Decree. In this case, the plaintiff can be said to be a right holder of public waters by constructing a new land according to the conditions of permission to occupy and use a river. Since a person has obtained authorization of completion pursuant to Articles 22 and 24 of the above Reclamation Act as a right holder, the plaintiff's acquisition of ownership by acquiring ownership or, in the form and procedure, it is merely a request for ratification as stipulated in Article 36 of the Reclamation Act with the permission to occupy and use a river without permission of the Minister, and it is not a free discretion of an administrative agency, but a person who has obtained permission to reclaim public waters is not a right holder of the above public waters, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the above permission to occupy and use a new public waters is not a person who has a right holder of public waters.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and the ground of appeal cannot be adopted, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-man (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-Mag-ri, the Mag-Mag-ri,