In the case of a bank site and a non-party-state-owned land before December 31, 1984, which was the enforcement date of the River Act (Act No. 2292) from July 20, 1971 to December 31, 1984, the enforcement date of the amended Act of the River Act (Act No. 3782), whether the competent authority should compensate for the loss suffered by the owner, even if there is no explicit provision on compensation (affirmative)

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

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Kim Sung-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gyeonggi-do (Seoul Law Firm, Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu15560 decided January 7, 2011

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of right by the Land Survey Board

A person registered as a landowner in the Land Survey Book pursuant to the former Land Survey Decree (Ordinance No. 2, Aug. 13, 1912) shall be presumed to be under the circumstances of the landowner and to have become final and conclusive unless there is any counter-proof, such as that the content of the situation has been changed by an adjudication (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Meu1773, Jun. 10, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 2006Da55692, 5708, Mar. 26, 2009).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, after compiling the adopted evidence, found facts as stated in the judgment, and determined that the land investigation division included the plaintiffs' assistance in the land investigation as a title of assessment, so long as there is no counter-proof such as the change in the contents of the circumstances by the judgment, the plaintiffs' assistance in the

In light of the above legal principles and records, such determination by the court below is justifiable. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the presumption of right by the land survey division, such as the ground

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the analogical application of the Act on Special Measures for Compensation for Land Incorporated into Rivers

Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into a River (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) provides that “If a person falls under any of the following subparagraphs and the 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 a River, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do Governor (hereinafter “Mayor/Do Governor”) shall compensate for its loss.” Article 2(1)2(a) of the Act provides that “Where a person falls under subparagraph 1 and a person becomes a river area prior to the enforcement date of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land Incorporated into a River, Article 2(1)2(a) of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into a River, Article 2(2) provides that “Where a person falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the person was excluded from a river area under subparagraph 2(d) of the Act prior to the enforcement date of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into a River, Article 378(2(d) of the River Act) of 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, there is no explicit provision regarding whether the Act on Special Measures for the Control of the River Act (Act No. 3782) is a State-owned site and exclusion before the enforcement date of the Act.

However, as long as the bank site and exclusion area became nationalized with river areas together with the river basin, the loss suffered by the owner should be compensated, and there is no reasonable ground that the method of compensation is different from that of the river basin (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da34630, Nov. 24, 1995; 2003Da16221, Jun. 27, 2003; 2003Da16221, Jun. 27, 2003). Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Management of the River Act (Act No. 3782, Act No. 3782, Jan. 29, 200) should apply mutatis mutandis to the land and exclusion from the bank which was nationalized before the enforcement date of the amended Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, after compiling the adopted evidence, the court below found facts as stated in the judgment, and determined that Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Management of Sea Areas should apply mutatis mutandis to the plaintiffs who inherited the deceased YY, on the ground that the site for an embankment among each of the lands of this case was actually incorporated into the river area prior to the enforcement of the Act No. 2292, or at least the construction of the doorbook, was owned by the State in the around 1980.

In light of the above legal principles and records, such determination by the court below is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of application under Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures such as the Grounds for

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)