A. Whether a lawsuit seeking compensation for losses under Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the River Act (Act No. 3782) is a civil lawsuit (affirmative)

B. Whether the procedure of compensation as prescribed by the Regulations on the Compensation for Land Incorporated into Rivers (Presidential Decree No. 11919) under the above Act is a requisite transfer requirement for a civil suit (negative)

A. As the loss under Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the River Act (Act No. 3782) is the essential part of the loss of the right under private law, the right to seek compensation for losses against the State, etc. is a right under private law and the lawsuit seeking the payment of compensation for losses is a civil lawsuit.

B. Even if Article 2(4) of the Addenda to the same Act provides for the procedure of claim for compensation, the calculation date, the criteria for compensation, and other necessary matters to be determined by the Presidential Decree, and accordingly, Articles 5 through 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the River Compensation Act (Presidential Decree No. 11919) stipulate the method of claim for compensation, the determination of the person subject to compensation, the calculation of compensation amount and the criteria for the payment of compensation, and the notification of payment of compensation, the purport of the provision is merely that the management agency, etc. provides internal procedures for the performance of the obligation to pay compensation for losses incurred pursuant to the determination of Article 2(1) of Addenda to the River Act, and cannot be deemed that the provision provides for the necessary procedures

Article 2 of the Addenda of the River Act (Act No. 3782), Articles 5 through 11 of the Regulations on the Compensation for Land Incorporated into River (Presidential Decree No. 11919), Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5689 delivered on December 21, 1990 (Gong1991, 647)

Kim Jong-young Law Firm, Pacific Law Office, Attorneys Kim In-ap et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na8840 delivered on August 24, 1990

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed and the judgment is revoked.

The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil District Court.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the River Act promulgated by Act No. 3782 of Dec. 31, 1984, the court below determined that if the land was a river area due to the ground of the above Act's enforcement before the enforcement of the Act, or the land located within the exclusion area due to the enforcement of Act No. 2292 (a) of Jan. 19, 1971, the management agency should compensate for the loss. Thus, if the land of this case becomes a river area with the weight of the directly owned river (which falls under Article 2 (1) 2 (a) of the River Act) prior to the enforcement of the Act's enforcement of the above Act, the person who lost the ownership has a right to claim compensation, or a person who did not request compensation from the management agency pursuant to Article 2 (4) of the Addenda of the above Act (amended by Act No. 3782 of Dec. 30, 1989), the court below should first determine the procedure for claiming compensation, standards, standards for compensation and other necessary matters.

However, the loss under Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the River Act (Presidential Decree No. 3782) is an essential element of loss of the right under private law and is the right to seek compensation for losses against the State, etc. and the lawsuit seeking payment of compensation for losses is a civil lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5689 delivered on December 21, 1990). However, Article 2 (4) of the Addenda of the same Act provides that the procedure for procedure for claim for compensation, calculation date, standards for compensation and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and accordingly, Articles 5 through 11 of the same Act (Presidential Decree No. 11919) stipulate the method of claim for compensation, determination of the person subject to compensation, calculation and criteria for compensation, and the purport of the provision, a thorough examination of the provision is only required to prescribe internal procedures for performing the obligation to pay compensation for losses under Article 2 (1) of Addenda of the River Act.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal nature of the claim for compensation for losses under Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the River Act (Act No. 3782), and the legal principles of Articles 5 through 11 of the River Compensation Regulations (Presidential Decree No. 11919), which dismissed the lawsuit of this case on account of its illegality, and thereby dismissed the judgment of the court of first instance. The arguments pointing this out are with merit.

Therefore, according to Articles 407, 395 and 387 of the Civil Procedure Act, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the case shall be remanded to the court of first instance to hear the merits of the case, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)