Whether the previous owner of the contaminated land re-acquisitions the ownership of the land filled up when the submerged land has been re-dried.

If any submerged land has been re-dried, the ownership of the previous owner of the submerged land shall be permanently extinguished and shall not be re-acquisition the ownership of the land filled up.

Freeboard Rabro et al.

Kim Dong-dong et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 63Na646 delivered on November 11, 1964

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment on the Defendants’ ground of appeal 2 (B) as to each of the above land was owned by each of the plaintiffs' prior land. However, even though about 30 and about 40 years prior to the time of heavy flood, even if the water has come to be fast, it would be deep enough to remove the engine line or wooden line, if the water has come to be fast, it would be fast enough to remove the engine line or wooden line. Although the Government started excavation work at around 1959 when it started up with the above ground of appeal 2 (B), it was found that the soil was stored at a low-water level, and that the Defendants developed the farmland with the cooperation of the citizens, and then the ownership of the previous land has come to lapse, it was determined that the ownership of the land was re-established, but if the previous land was re-established, the owner of the land was re-owned.

However, it is difficult to recognize that the previous owner acquired ownership as a matter of course at the time of re-embankingation of the following land, but such custom has disappeared from the time of the completion of the land situation. Therefore, if the following land was re-embankinged, the previous owner's ownership of the following land is permanently extinguished and it cannot be recognized that the ownership of the following land is re-acquisitiond. However, there is an error of law that misleads the existence of custom, and the appeal on this point is reasonable, and without requiring the judgment on other points, the original judgment should not be reversed.

Therefore, according to Articles 400 and 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)