(a) Whether the land excluded is a nationalized river area ipso facto without any designated disposition by the management agency;

B. Whether Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the River Act is unconstitutional (negative)

(a)The excluded area shall be State-owned as a matter of course in accordance with the provisions of law, even without any designation or disposition by the management agency;

B. The provisions on compensation for losses under Articles 74 and 75 of the River Act, in mind of Article 22(3) of the Constitution that the expropriation and restriction on use of property rights shall be an Act if public necessity arises, and it is reasonable to interpret that the compensation for losses should be made by analogy of each of the above provisions, even if there is no direct compensation provision, such as nationalization of the excluding cases where the reasons for compensation are listed more than that of the excluding cases where the reasons for compensation are restricted, in consideration of the relevant provisions of the River Act, comprehensively examining the relevant provisions of the River Act that the payment of compensation must be made. Thus, the nationalization of whether to exclude under Article 2(1)2(c) of the same Act is accompanied by the compensation under the Act, and therefore, it cannot be said that Article 2

(a)Article 2(1), Article 74, and Article 75(b) of the River Act;

Supreme Court Decision 78Da506 Decided June 13, 1978, 79Da812 Decided July 10, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 84Da33 Decided March 27, 1984

Attorney Park Jae-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The motion of this case is dismissed.

The summary of the application of this case is that all rivers are owned by the State under Article 3 of the River Act, and Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the same Act is excluded from the location of an bank installed by the management agency or by the person who is permitted or delegated by the management agency, or the area of similar land designated by the management agency. Meanwhile, Article 74 (1) of the same Act provides that a person who suffers losses due to the designation of a river area under Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the same Act can receive compensation for losses. Thus, if the river area naturally becomes a river area under the provisions of the Act without any need for a disposition of designation by the management agency excluded from the interpretation of Article 2 (1) 2 (c), it can not be applied to this case, and the above Article 74 (1) 2 (c) of the same Act provides that a person who suffered losses due to the designation of a river area under Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the same Act is excluded from the application of a State-owned land property right without compensation.

In this regard, the term "river area" under Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the River Act is naturally a river area under the provisions of the Act without any designated disposition by the management agency. Therefore, it is nationalized (see Supreme Court Decisions 78Da506, Jun. 13, 1978; 79Da812, Jul. 10, 1979). However, with respect to the compensation, only Article 74 (1) of the same Act provides that the compensation for losses arising from the designation of a river area under Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the same Act shall be limited to the land which is naturally a river area under Article 74 (1) 2 (c) of the same Act, i.e., the land which is excluded from the river area under Article 74 and Article 75 of the same Act, and there is no provision directly applicable to the compensation for losses under Article 75 (2) of the same Act. However, it is reasonable to interpret the provisions of Article 745 of the River Act to be excluded from the compensation.

Furthermore, Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the Act (amended by Act No. 3782), which was enforced on December 31, 1984, supports the interpretation of the Act, which provides that in case where the land located within the exclusion area due to the enforcement of Act No. 2292, which was promulgated on January 19, 1971, becomes a state-owned property, the management agency shall compensate for the loss, and that nationalization of the exclusion area is also subject to compensation. In addition, Article 2(2) of the Act provides that the extinctive prescription of the right to claim compensation under paragraph (1) of the same Article shall be counted from the date when the Act enters into force, and the Act provides that the period of extinctive prescription of the right to claim compensation under paragraph (1) shall be counted from the date when the Act enters into force, thereby ensuring that the land owner who did not exercise the right to claim compensation shall not return any

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju