When the ownership of the land cannot be deemed to have become extinct due to such arbitrity;

Even if the land is made up of 4 hours a day by a typhoon, which is a tideland, and a tideland of approximately 1 to 1.3m a day, it can be deemed that the ownership of the land is not lost due to a fall, if it is possible to restore the land to its original state without excessive expenses and there is economic value to restore to its original state.

Article 212 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Korea

Daegu High Court Decision 77Na286 delivered on October 11, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.

The court below selected the evidence, and judged that the non-party's preservation registration was made as of June 7, 1924 and October 5, 1966, and the ownership transfer registration was made in the plaintiff's future, 70,602 land, which was the case where the 70,602 land was stored within the original sea, was used as a stable, a dry field, a dry field, or a part of the land which was located within the original sea, so as to prevent the intrusion of marine water, and was used as a so-called so-called private typhoon in the year 1959, and it was tideland for a tideland, and it was left alone for about 46,222,00 through 5,98,00 won per day, so that the economic construction of the land can still be made within 40,500,000,000,000 won and more than 4,000,000,000,000,00 farmland.

If the evidence adopted by the court below is examined by comparison with the record, the above facts of recognition by the court below are sufficiently pride, and the evidence at the time of the lawsuit are legitimately rejected by the court below, and even if based on these evidences, the possibility of restoring the land to its original state and its economic value, and the result of the court below's decision that the plaintiff's ownership was not lost is not affected separately, and it cannot be said that there is a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the court below.

In addition, as long as the entire form of the instant land is above, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s ownership was extinguished on the ground that the part of 7,837 square meters, which was part of the instant land, was already formed as a land which is not a sea surface due to the reclamation projects of the country. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the lower court’s judgment was erroneous in the judgment under the same purport, and that the Supreme Court precedents of the theory of lawsuit (Seoul High Court Decision 71Na190, Sept. 13, 1972 and Supreme Court Decision 72Da2015, Jan. 16, 1973) differ from this case’s content, and it cannot be concluded that the instant judgment conflicts with these decisions.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)