Whether reclamation expenses and office management expenses invested after the public water reclamation license becomes invalidated (negative)

Even if the Plaintiff concluded the same business contract with the reclamation licensee and completed the reclamation work by investing 17 million won in the construction cost, after the Plaintiff was automatically notified of the lapse of the construction completion period, the Plaintiff’s intent to perform the reclamation work cannot be deemed to have been subjectively intended for others. As it is objectively apparent that the construction cost is contrary to the intent of the Defendant State (public waters owners) or Do (manager). Thus, the construction cost of 17 million won cannot be deemed to be the necessary expenses paid for the Defendants.

Article 25 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, Article 739 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant

Republic of Korea and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na3972 delivered on January 26, 1981

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party entered into the above reclamation business agreement with the above non-party on January 25, 197 and completed the above reclamation work on October 30, 1968 with the authority delegated by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, but the reclamation license was automatically invalidated as of October 31, 1968 due to the non-party's failure to complete the reclamation work within the above completion period under Article 25 (1) 2 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, and the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do decided that the above reclamation license was null and void as of October 31, 1968, and the above reclamation license was void in the form of cancellation. The plaintiffs did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above reclamation business agreement with the above non-party on November 25, 1973 and completed the reclamation work as of June 1973. The defendant Gyeonggi-do's owner of public waters, as the owner of the public waters, and it cannot be objectively acknowledged that the plaintiff had the above intent to manage the above reclamation work.

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 on the bench.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)