The purport of the amendment of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land Incorporated into River Areas and the subject of Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the same Act

Article 2 of the former Act on Special Measures for Land Incorporated into River Areas (hereinafter "the amended Act") which was amended and promulgated by Act No. 6772 on December 11, 202, Article 2 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into River Areas (hereinafter "the amended Act") includes "Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into River Areas (the Act before amended by Act No. 6772 of December 11, 2002; hereinafter "the former Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into River Areas") 1 through 3 of Article 2 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into River Areas (the Act No. 92) which was amended and enforced on the same day; Article 2 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into River Areas (the Act No. 1); Article 2 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into River Areas (the Act No. 2000) excludes the so-called "Act No. 92 of the River Areas incorporated into River Areas" without the scope of Article 2 of the Act.

Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land Incorporated into River Areas (Act No. 6772 of December 11, 2002)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Han-ro, Attorneys Seo-gil et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na33481 delivered on December 10, 2002

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

1. Based on the evidence of employment, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the course of subdivision and annexation of 718 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "land in this case") in Jung-gu, Seoul ( Address omitted); and (b) on the land in this case divided and combined as above, the registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the future of the Republic of Korea on October 11, 1990; (c) since the construction of the above bank around 1941, the land in this case was excluded from the above bank; (d) the term "case of recognition of the area of the river managed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation" No. 897 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation as of June 1, 1964, Paragraph (3) of the "No. 3 of the "No. 1964" was excluded from the area of the river area in this case (excluding the area of the private land registered from the bank; and (e) the land excluded from the area of the land in this case under paragraph (1), and recognized and publicly notified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation Act No. 10.16.

Then, according to Article 2 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land Incorporated into River Area (Act No. 6065, Dec. 28, 1999; hereinafter referred to as the "former Special Act"), the court below determined that the damages should be compensated only when the claim for compensation has expired due to the expiration of the statute of limitations under Article 2 of the Addenda to the amended Act (Act No. 3782, Dec. 31, 1984; hereinafter referred to as "Act No. 1982, Dec. 31, 1984"), since Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the amended Act (amended Act No. 1984, Dec. 197; hereinafter referred to as "Act No. 1984, Dec. 29, 197"), it did not apply to the river area which had been incorporated into a new river area under Article 2 (1) 2 (a) of the former Act before the enforcement of the Act.

2. However, under the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land Incorporated into River Areas (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Special Measures Act"), the above judgments by the court below cannot be maintained.

Article 2 of the revised Act, in addition to Article 2(1) through (3) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the subject of its application, adds "in case of the land which was located in the place of exclusion before the enforcement date of the Act No. 2292 (the 1971 Act)" (the 1971 Act) to "the case of national ownership", and Article 3 provides that "the extinctive prescription of the right to claim compensation under Article 2 shall expire on December 31, 2003" and Article 2(2) of the Addenda provides that "the lawsuit of claiming compensation related to the land as provided for in Article 2 of the Act shall continue to exist in the court at the time of the enforcement of the Act, or is incorporated into the land for which a final and conclusive judgment is rendered that it is not a person entitled to compensation".

The purport of Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the former Special Assistance Act is to ensure equity between land incorporated into a river by correcting that the former Special Assistance Act was restricting the scope of compensation to the so-called detention area (Article 2 (1) 2 (a) of the current River Act) without setting the time of incorporation, but excludes the so-called detention area (Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the current River Act) from the compensation (Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the current River Act). The defendant's decision that the land excluded from the scope of compensation due to the enforcement of the Act No. 2292 of the amended River Act (Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the former Special Assistance Act) constitutes a State-owned land (Article 2 of the former Special Assistance Act) that was subject to the amendment of the former Special Assistance Act (Article 1961). Accordingly, the court below's decision that the land was subject to the amendment of the former Special Assistance Act prior to the enforcement date of the Act, which did not constitute a State-owned land's non-owned land.

3. Ultimately, the ground of appeal assigning this error is justified, and the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)