[1] The legal nature of the claim for compensation for losses under Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the former River Act, Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for Compensation for Land Incorporated into Rivers

[2] In a case where a person who is not a true owner is deemed an owner at the time of transfer into a river and pays compensation for losses, whether the person is exempted from the obligation to pay compensation for losses to the true owner pursuant to Article 470 of the Civil Code

[1] Article 2(1) of the former River Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5893 of Feb. 8, 1999) (wholly amended by Act No. 5893 of Dec. 31, 1984); Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into Rivers / [2] Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 3 of the former River Act (wholly amended by Act No. 3406 of Mar. 31, 1981); Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into Rivers; Article 470

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gyeonggi-do (Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 2012Du7097 Decided February 16, 2015

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu822 decided June 16, 2015

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the River Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised River Act") provides that the State-owned land which became a river basin before December 31, 1984 due to the enforcement date of the amended River Act; and the State-owned land within the area excluded from the State-owned river due to the enforcement date of the former River Act (wholly amended by Act No. 2292, Jan. 19, 1971); Article 2 of the Act on the Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Incorporated Land within the River Area provides that the management agency shall compensate for the loss; Article 2 of the same Act provides that the State-owned land within the area excluded from the State-owned river area was not subject to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period under Article 3 of the Act on the Special Measures for the Compensation for Incorporated Land within the River Area (see Article 28 (1) 2 of the same Act) as the State-owned land before the enforcement date of the amended River Act (see subparagraph 28).

According to Article 3 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 3406 of Mar. 31, 1981), land incorporated into a river area shall be owned by the State, and the State shall be liable for compensation to the relevant landowner. In light of the principle of fair compensation declared by Article 23 of the Constitution and the legal nature of the right to claim compensation as seen earlier, etc., if the State deemed a person, other than a real owner, such as a person indicated as a registration titleholder for preservation of ownership or registration for transfer of ownership, as a registration titleholder, as at the time of transfer of a river and paid compensation for losses to the registration titleholder, even if the State was not negligent in believing that the registration titleholder was the owner at the time of transfer of a river, the State cannot be deemed exempted from the obligation to pay compensation to the real owner under

2. Based on evidence, the court below found the following facts: ① on December 17, 1946, Nonparty 1’s wife Nonparty 2 succeeded to the instant land 1 and 2 solely by the former custom, but died on September 2, 1949; ② on September 31, 1984, Nonparty 1 succeeded to the property and lost the right to the inherited property on June 3, 1959, before the Civil Code enters into force; ② Nonparty 4 succeeded to the instant land on March 30, 1997, and the Plaintiff died on behalf of Nonparty 4 and succeeded to the said land 1 and 2; ② Nonparty 1 and 2 were assigned to the river area on behalf of Nonparty 1 and 2 as compensation for losses on or before December 31, 1984, and ③ Nonparty 3 was admitted to the Defendant’s judgment on June 1, 201 as compensation for losses on or before the judgment of the court below rendered on September 21, 2013.

3. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, Nonparty 3, at the time of incorporation of the instant land 1 and 2 into the river area, lost the status of Nonparty 1’s heir, and cannot be deemed as the true owner of each of the above lands. If the leisure price paid compensation for losses by deeming Nonparty 3 as the owner of each of the above lands, even if Nonparty 3 was not negligent in trusting Nonparty 3 as the landowner, the Defendant cannot be exempted from the obligation to pay compensation to the Plaintiff, the true owner upon the repayment of compensation for losses against Nonparty 3.

Nevertheless, on different premises, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant compensation on the ground that the Defendant’s payment of compensation for losses to Nonparty 3 on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of Nonparty 3 in paying compensation for losses to Nonparty 3. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of application under Article 470 of the Civil Act regarding the right to claim for compensation for land incorporated into the river area, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)