Whether a person who is in a position entitled to preferential concession of desolate river sites under the River Act may seek cancellation of registration by asserting that the concession of desolate river sites is null and void against the order of priority (negative)

Examining the provisions of Article 77 of the River Act and Article 45 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the Minister of Construction and Transportation acknowledges that it is unnecessary to retain the desolate river site, etc. as state property and transfers it in accordance with the order and standard under the above provision, the right to seek cancellation of registration is not acquired by asserting that the concession is null and void by asserting that the concession is made to the subordinate person, who is the owner of desolate river site, immediately sought the registration of transfer of the ownership of the desolate river site from the State in accordance with the above provision at the stage where the transfer contract was not concluded, and that the concession is null and void.

Article 77 of the River Act, Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Da1342 delivered on May 11, 1976 (Gong1976, 9157) 75Da1317 delivered on June 8, 1976

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na20564 delivered on August 14, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the primary claim

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below, based on a comprehensive examination of evidences, found that the State was to construct a rock station near seven kilometers from the 1962 river basin, the maximum point of the river basin, 1962. The Minister of Construction and Transportation announced the construction of the river basin below No. 542 on September 10, 1963, which was 196, 3. The construction of the river basin of this case was 9,66, 3. The construction of the river basin of this case was 9,66, 196, 3. The construction of the river basin of this case was 9,6. The construction of the river basin of this case was 19, 3. The construction of the river basin of this case was 9,6. The construction of the river basin of this case was 9,6. The construction of the river basin of this case, 3. The construction of the river basin of this case was 9,65,000,000. The construction of the river basin of this case (3.).

2. As to the ground of appeal on the first preliminary claim

Examining the provisions of Article 77 of the River Act and Article 45 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the Minister of Construction and Transportation acknowledges that it is unnecessary to retain desolate river sites, etc. as state-owned property and transfers the desolate river sites according to the order and standard under the above provision, it is reasonable to interpret that the Minister of Construction and Transportation is not to acquire the right to seek cancellation of registration by asserting that the transfer is null and void by asserting that the transfer is made in the name of the subordinate person who obtained the transfer of the desolate river site from the State in violation of the above provision at the stage where the transfer contract is not concluded, even if the transfer contract is granted with priority.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the defendant state transferred each land of this case, which is a desolate river site under the River Act, to the defendant Do-do, which is subordinate, without transferring it to the plaintiff who is the priority holder, in violation of the above provisions and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the ownership transfer registration based on the transfer in the future of the defendant Do-do and the ownership transfer registration based on it is null and void, the defendant state should cancel the above claim on the first preliminary claim of the plaintiff that the plaintiff should make the ownership transfer registration to the plaintiff, while the defendant state should make the registration of ownership transfer to the plaintiff, on the ground that the plaintiff does not correspond to the priority holder under the above provision, and there is no right to make the above claim to the priority holder (the original court expressed it as priority transfer right). The reasoning of the judgment below is somewhat insufficient, but it is not sufficient that the plaintiff does not acquire the right to make the above provision alone to request the registration of ownership transfer or cancellation against the defendants in light of the above legal principles, and therefore the above plaintiff's claim is justified in the conclusion.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)