Whether a person who bears the duty to restore by performing reclamation works of public waters without a license can seek delivery of stone, earth, sand, etc. invested in such reclamation (negative)

Article 9, Article 35(1)1, Article 35(2) and (3) of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, Article 741 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Woo, Attorneys Kim Young-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Na28792 Decided January 20, 2009

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

If reclamation work of public waters was performed without a license, the reclamationer is obligated to restore the public waters to its original state and has no authority (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da13903 delivered on June 28, 1996).

In this case, the plaintiff recognized that the public waters corresponding to the land of this case were reclaimed without a license, and therefore, the plaintiff as the plaintiff bears the duty to restore according to the above legal principles and there is no authority to do so. Therefore, it is not possible to seek delivery of stone and earth and sand, etc. invested in such reclamation.

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is somewhat inappropriate, the conclusion that rejected the plaintiff's claim on this part is just, and there is no violation of the law of misunderstanding of legal principles as to non-influence evidence, violation of the rules of experience or the rules of evidence, or violation of the right to

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.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)