Whether the competent authority should compensate for the loss suffered by the owner of a river, even if there is no explicit provision on compensation in the case of a State-owned property before the enforcement date of the amended Act (Act No. 3782) of the River Act (Act No. 3782) from the enforcement date of the amended Act (Act No. 2292) (amended by the River Act) (affirmative)

According to Article 2(1)2(b) and (c) and Article 3 of the River Act (Act No. 2292), Article 2(1)2(b) and (c) of the Act, and Article 3 of the same Act, the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into a River (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) does not stipulate a provision on compensation for State-owned land from the enforcement date of the Act (Act No. 2292) to the enforcement date of the Act (Act No. 3782) prior to the enforcement date of the Act (Act No. 3782). However, as long as the bank site and exclusion site become a State-owned river area along with the river basin, so long as the site and exclusion site become a State-owned river area, the damage suffered by the owner should be compensated to the State-owned land, and there is no reasonable ground to believe that the method of compensation should be applied to the owner prior to the enforcement date of the Act prior to the enforcement date of the Act.

Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into Rivers; Article 2(1)2 and Article 3 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 3406 of March 31, 1981)

Supreme Court Decision 94Da34630 delivered on November 24, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 142) Supreme Court Decision 2003Da16221 Delivered on June 27, 2003

Korea Buddhist Cho Jae-sung (Law Firm Shin, Attorneys Kim Jong-nam et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gyeonggi-do (Attorney Lee-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu22919 decided December 16, 2010

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into River (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) provides that “When a person falls under any of the following subparagraphs and his/her claim for compensation has expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription under Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land Incorporated into River Area, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do Governor (hereinafter “Mayor/Do Governor”) shall compensate for losses incurred thereby.” Article 2(1)2(a) of the Act provides that “Where a person falls under subparagraph 1 and a river area becomes a river area prior to the enforcement date of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land Incorporated into River, Article 2(1)2(a) of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land Incorporated into River, Article 2(2) provides that “Where a person falls under subparagraph 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land Incorporated into a River before the enforcement date of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into River Act, Article 3782(d) of the Act provides that a State-owned Act was excluded from subparagraph 2(d) of the Act prior to the Act.

However, according to Article 2(1)2(b) and (c) and Article 3 of the River Act (Act No. 2292), the Act on Special Measures for the Control of the River Act (Act No. 2292), it is naturally a river area and State-owned property pursuant to the provisions of the Act. However, the Act on Special Measures for the Control of the Control of the River Act (Act No. 3782) does not have any explicit provision on whether the Act on Special Measures for the Control of the River Act (Act No. 3782) is a State-owned site and exclusion.

However, as long as the bank site and exclusion area became nationalized with river area along with the river basin, the loss suffered by the owner should be compensated, and there is no reasonable ground for the method of compensation different from that of the river basin (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da34630, Nov. 24, 1995; 2003Da16221, Jun. 27, 2003; 2003Da16221, Jun. 27, 2003). It is reasonable to view that Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Management of the River Act should apply mutatis mutandis to the land and exclusion from the bank which was nationalized before the enforcement date of the amended Act, Act No. 3782, Dec. 31, 2002.

2. According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment partially admitted by the lower court and the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Management of Land, Etc., a landowner, should apply mutatis mutandis to the Plaintiff, on the ground that: (a) land falling under the bank site and exclusion area among the land owned by the Plaintiff, was constructed by the bank △△△△△△△△△△△ in 1983, which was a national river; and (b) the Defendant, as a landowner, should compensate

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of application under Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures.

3. 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 Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)