[1] The base date of the evaluation for the compensation of land to be incorporated into a river under Article 2 of the Addenda to the amended River Act (Act No. 3782)

[2] The meaning of "the category of land as at the time of incorporation and the state of use" under Article 10 of the "Regulations on the Compensation for Land incorporated into a river under Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended River Act, Act No. 3782"

[3] In a case where the land which is the object of the auction was owned by the State as a river area after the decision of permission for the auction became final and conclusive, but there was no method or procedure to seek compensation after a considerable period of time, the method and procedure for claiming compensation is prepared, the time and scope of the exercise of the right to claim compensation by the successful bidder, and whether the person entitled to claim compensation can exercise the right to claim compensation by means of receiving

[1] Article 2 of the Addenda of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 5893 of Feb. 8, 199) (amended by Act No. 5893 of Dec. 31, 1984), and Article 2 of the former Addenda of the River Act (amended by Act No. 3782 of Dec. 31, 1984), “the provision on the compensation for land incorporated into a river under Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended River Act among the provisions on the compensation for land incorporated into a river under Article 3782 of the former Act (amended by Act No. 3782 of Mar. 28, 200)” (refer to Article 28 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into a River Area for which the extinctive prescription of a claim for compensation under Article 2 of the Addenda of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into a River under Article 3782 of the former Enforcement Decree of the River Act) / [2] Article 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the River Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da3610, 3627, 3634 decided September 3, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 1997) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da30445 decided September 25, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2340)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu4241 delivered on May 20, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the time when the instant land was nationalized

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, after compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, and determined that the lands listed in the annexed sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") were naturally owned on July 20, 1971, as they fall under the river areas stipulated in Article 2 (1) 2 (a) of the former River Act (Act No. 2292), which was amended by Act No. 2292 on January 19, 1971, and enforced on July 20, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "former River Act") and were naturally reverted to the State under Article 3 of the same Act.

In light of the relevant laws and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the timing of nationalization of the land of this case.

2. As to the land of this case

(a) Acts applicable to compensation for losses;

Of the instant lands, the lower court: (a) confirmed that the Plaintiff is a person entitled to claim compensation under Article 2 of the Addenda of the River Act (amended by Act No. 3782, Dec. 31, 1984; hereinafter “the Addenda of the River Act (amended by Act No. 3782); and (b) recognized that the Defendant determined the Plaintiff as a person entitled to compensation before the expiration of the extinctive prescription and carried out the compensation evaluation procedure; and (c) determined that the compensation for the instant land was incorporated into a river area, for which the extinctive prescription of the right to claim compensation under Article 2 of Addenda of the Act (amended by Act No. 3782, Dec. 28, 199; hereinafter “the former Act”) and Article 4 of Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16767, Mar. 28, 200; hereinafter “the former Act”) and Article 28 of the Addenda of the River Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1932, Jun. 12, 198, 1986). 198).

In light of the records and relevant statutes, the above determination by the court below is justifiable.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the law applied in compensating for losses as in the grounds of appeal.

(b) Evaluation standards for compensation for losses;

In a case where a local government requested the appraisal of a land incorporated into a river area pursuant to the provisions of the Addenda of the River Act (Act No. 3782) for the compensation of a land incorporated into a river area, and the assessed value was determined as an indemnity amount, the base date of the appraisal for the compensation shall be deemed to be the time when the local government lawfully requested the appraisal (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da3610, 3627, 3634, Sept. 3, 199). Article 10 of the former River Compensation Regulations provides that the appraisal of the compensation amount shall be based on the price as at the time of the appraisal for the compensation. It shall be based on the land category and utilization as at the time of incorporation, the public law limit, real situation, and the arm's length price of neighboring land (No. 2292, the former River Act). It shall be deemed that there was no provision on the compensation amount as at the time of enforcement of the said provision, which means 20 years before the enforcement of the River Act.

The court below affirmed the judgment below, on July 20, 1971, that although the present status of the land of this case is unclear, it is the land which had already been a river area and continuously flows, or even if it does not reach the level of flowing water at least once a year, it was the land which shows the form of a river where water flows at least once a year at least once, and that the growth ground on the topography and the land was the brupt sand land where the growth ground on the land was affected by flowing water. ③ The base point of the compensation for the land of this case should be seen as around December 17, 1993 when the defendant requested the appraisal agency to assess the compensation for the compensation for the damage of the land of this case. ③ The defendant calculated the price for the compensation for the compensation for the damage of the land of this case. The present status or the utilization status at the time of incorporation as of December 17, 1993 at the time of request the appraisal agency to assess the compensation for the land of this case.

In light of the records and relevant statutes, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justifiable.

The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the rules of evidence, evaluation methods of compensation and calculation of compensation.

3. As to the land remaining other than the land of this case

If the land which is the object of sale becomes an object of auction after the decision of permission for auction becomes final and conclusive, and the owner's obligation to transfer ownership to the successful bidder becomes impossible, the successful bidder shall be entitled to exercise the right to claim compensation to be paid due to the incorporation into the river area, barring any special circumstance. However, in cases where the seller's obligation to transfer ownership is impossible due to expropriation of the object of sale or nationalization, barring any special circumstance, the successful bidder can exercise his/her right to claim compensation. However, in cases where the method and procedure of claiming compensation are prepared after considerable period of time, it is impossible to exercise the right to claim compensation before the method of claiming compensation is prepared, and in such cases, it is reasonable to view that the right to claim compensation can be exercised from the time when the method of claiming compensation is prepared. In such cases, as long as the successful bidder, who is the creditor who is the object of compensation, has the right to claim compensation, barring any special circumstance, to exercise the right to claim compensation under the name of the obligee who is the object of compensation within the scope of the right to claim.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that, after Hanil Bank was successful on May 10, 1971 with respect to the land in this case, the compensation provision was established only under Article 2 of the Addenda of the River Act which was amended by Act No. 3782 on December 31, 1984 and enforced on the same day, the compensation provision was established for the transfer of ownership on July 20, 1971 due to the incorporation of the river area into the enforcement of the former River Act (Act No. 2292), but once the successful bid price was fully paid on July 28, 1971 and the transfer registration was completed due to the successful bid on September 15 of the same year. However, in the same case as the land in this case, there was no compensation provision on the acquisition of the land in this case, which was effective on the part of the defendant's right to claim compensation after being registered as the owner of the land in this case, and the remaining land within the period of 3rd of the plaintiff's right to claim for compensation.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable.

The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to claim.

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)