The difference in river areas in the new and old River Act;

According to the former River Act, a river area shall be determined only by the decision and public announcement of the river management agency, and even if land has been de facto deteriorated, it cannot become a river area as a matter of course without such special procedure, and according to the current River Act enacted in 1971, the area of the land within the river section is recognized as a river area under Article 2 (1) 2, and in particular, according to Article 2 (1) c, it is excluded from a river area where a bank is located.

Articles 2(1)2(a), (b), (c), and 12 and 13 of the current River Act (Act No. 892 of Dec. 30, 1961)

Supreme Court Decision 63Da927 Decided June 2, 1964

Plaintiff

Attorney Hwang Sung-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na1465 delivered on March 16, 1979

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

The defendant's attorney's second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the river management agency established the above river area with the name and section of the river to be applied mutatis mutandis by the plaintiff's management agency on April 13, 196, and the river area was determined and announced, and the river area was divided into 357 square meters (the address 1 omitted) and (the land category was changed from 70 square meters on July 22, 1974) were located south of the river area without the plaintiff's permission, and it was determined that there was no specific change in the river area from the above river area to the point of view that the river area was located outside of the above river area and the land was used to be used mutatis mutandis by the plaintiff's management agency on the ground of the change in the name and location of the river area as stated in the above river area. Accordingly, the court below's determination that there was no specific change in the river area to the surface of the river area as well as that of the river area to be used mutatis mutandis by the defendant.

There is reason to point out this issue.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit to view the remainder of the grounds for appeal, and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice)