1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 15, 1940, the land category of the previous C was changed from “B” to “river” on December 15, 1940.

On March 17, 2000, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land prior to the subdivision due to sale.

B. On August 7, 2015, the instant land before the instant partition was divided into C river 283 square meters and D river 1,105 square meters (hereinafter the said D river 1,105 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. On the other hand, on April 2004, the Defendant changed the part of E’s section designated as a small river according to the former Small River Maintenance Act (amended by Act No. 7678 of Aug. 4, 2005; hereinafter “former Small River Maintenance Act”) and publicly announced it as part of E’s small river area. The instant land is part of E’s small river area.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

B. The owner of land who suffers a loss due to the incorporation of the land into a river area shall consult with the river management agency pursuant to Article 74 of the former River Act (wholly amended by Act No. 838 of Apr. 6, 2007; hereinafter “former River Act”), and if the consultation is not reached or it is impossible to hold such consultation, he/she may immediately file an application for adjudication with the competent Land Tribunal and, if such adjudication is dissatisfied with, he/she may immediately file an administrative lawsuit against the competent Land Tribunal for the adjudication itself, and may not claim compensation for loss by civil action against the directly river management agency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da46827, Jun. 28, 1994; 95Da39441, Dec. 8, 1995); and Article 24 of the former Small River Maintenance Act provides for the contents of Article 74 of the former River Act. Therefore, the aforementioned legal doctrine is the same.