Whether a natural bank excluded from a river area designated and publicly notified as a river area under the former River Act is naturally excluded by the current River Act (negative)

It is insufficient to say that a bank is installed or naturally formed to be owned by the State as it falls under the exclusion of specific land under the current River Act. In the event that such bank is installed by the river management agency or by a person other than the river management agency or by the person who has been permitted or entrusted by the river management agency, it is necessary for the river management agency to obtain the consent of the installer in order to manage the bank as river appurtenances. If the bank is naturally formed, the river management agency should manage the bank as river appurtenances. Such a legal principle does not change solely on the fact that a naturally-established bank is designated and publicly announced as a bank under the former River Act (amended by Act No. 892 of Dec. 30, 1961; Act No. 1475 of Dec. 5, 1963).

Articles 2(1), 3, and 12 of the River Act, Article 3 (see current Article 2(1)), 4 (see current Article 3), and 12 (see current Article 8) of the former River Act (Amended by Act No. 2292, Jan. 19, 1971);

Supreme Court Decision 96Da11785 delivered on October 15, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3383), Supreme Court Decision 97Da485 delivered on May 16, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1836), Supreme Court Decision 99Da11007 delivered on August 20, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1874)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) (Law Firm Busan, Attorneys Seo Jae-in et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Law Firm Seo-Gyeong, Attorneys Jeong Woo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2001Na10571, 10588 delivered on January 25, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

It is insufficient to say that a bank is installed or naturally formed in order to be owned by the State as it falls under the land excluded from specific land under the current River Act. In the event that such bank is installed by the river management agency or by a person other than the river management agency or by the person who has been permitted or entrusted by the river management agency, it is required that the river management agency obtains the consent of the installer to manage the bank as river appurtenances (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da11785, Oct. 15, 196; 99Da11007, Aug. 20, 199; 9Da11007, Aug. 20, 199). This legal principle does not vary solely with the fact that a naturally formed bank was established by Act No. 892, Dec. 30, 196; Amended by Act No. 8975, Dec. 5, 1963; Act No. 8975, Dec. 5, 1963>

In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) it is difficult to deem that construction works to the extent recognized as construction of a bank were performed on the ground of the fact that the new draft bank of this case, which had to be excluded from the land of this case, was naturally formed bank; and (b) the fact that Jinju had implemented construction works on the ground of the new draft bank, flood restoration works, and the riverway construction works on the ground as part of the project for development of the Southern river basin development; (c) it was not prepared and kept a river register on the new draft bank of this case even in the Gyeongnam-do and Jinju-si, etc. with jurisdiction over the land of this case; and (d) it was not possible to find that the defendant had no legitimate title to the land of this case and no other legitimate title to the land of this case were acquired by the defendant before the enforcement of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292, Jan. 19, 191; hereinafter referred to as the "Amended River Act") and no other legitimate title to the plaintiff's claim for the amendment of this case.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the registration conforming to the substantive relations or in the misconception of facts due to the violation of

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 on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)