Ownership of the contaminated land or the land becoming a river site;

If the land adjacent to a river or the surface of the sea is flooded due to flood, flood, tidal wave, etc., and the land is stimulated below the water or flows into the water at all times and its return to the original state becomes impossible by social norms, the ownership is permanently extinguished due to the so-called fall, and if the land is converted into a river site, the ownership is nationalized due to it is incorporated into a river area in accordance with the requirements of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes on the river, and if the land is converted into a river site, the right of ownership is lost due to its anti-private effects.

Article 211 of the Civil Act, Article 3 of the River Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da677 delivered on February 23, 1965, 77Da2321 delivered on February 28, 1978, 79Da726 delivered on August 28, 1979, and 80Da2523 delivered on June 23, 1981, 83Meu1561 delivered on December 27, 1983

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 83Na1238 delivered on December 8, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether the misapprehension of the legal principle as to spawns

If the land adjacent to a river or the sea is flooded due to flood, flood, tidal wave, etc., and the land flows below the water or flows into the water at all times and its return to the original state becomes impossible by social norms, the ownership is permanently extinguished due to the so-called fall (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1561, Dec. 27, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 80Da2523, Jun. 23, 1981; 77Da2321, Feb. 28, 1978; etc.); and also, if the land is converted into a river site, it becomes State-owned because it is incorporated into a river area in accordance with the requirements stipulated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes on the river, and its return to the original state becomes impossible by social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Da7266, Aug. 28, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3764, Apr. 67, 297

According to the records, the defendant alleged that the land of this case was captured into Han River due to large flood on 1925 and 1936, and was incorporated into a river by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation under the former River Act at the time of the formation of the river and the river area under the former River Act, and that the defendant's country acquired ownership. The purport of this claim is that the plaintiffs' ownership of the land of this case was extinguished due to fall, and that the defendant country acquired ownership and lost ownership due to the reflective effects of the Act and subordinate statutes. Although the court below did not make clear judgment on the termination of ownership due to fall, the court below did not dismiss the defendants' assertion on the fact that it was impossible to return to the original state of the land under social norms, it is clear that the court below rejected the defendants' assertion on this point. Accordingly, the decision of the court below is just and there is no misapprehension of legal principles or precedents as to the loss of private right as to the river. Thus, the theory of the defendant's lawsuit by Seoul Special Metropolitan City as to this point is groundless.

2. Whether it is against the rules of evidence

In light of the record, the court below's decision, which reviewed the records, is not recognized to have been followed by the river age or the procedure for incorporation into a river area under the former River Act, and that it cannot be seen as a river pursuant to the current River Act, is justified in the measures, and it cannot be said that there was any violation of evidence collection, such as the theory of litigation, on the evidence preparation that passed through the process. Thus, the defendants' theory that criticizes the legitimate evidence preparation by the fact-finding court is not adopted

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)