Whether a landowner may exercise a claim for compensation for losses under the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into Rivers where the acquisition by the State occupies land for twenty years and the acquisition by prescription is completed (affirmative)

Articles 1 and 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into Rivers

Supreme Court Decision 2010Du18758 Decided October 11, 2012 (Gong2012Ha, 1828)

Plaintiff 1 and nine others (Attorney Park Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gyeonggi-do (Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Tae Tae-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu5776 decided July 16, 2015

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. The lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim for compensation for damages under Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into Rivers (amended by Act No. 9543, Mar. 25, 2009; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”), on the ground that, even though the Plaintiffs’ claim for compensation for damages under the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into Rivers was formally constituted, since the State occupied the instant bank site from the time when it was around 1941 and the acquisition by prescription was completed in around 1961 by occupying the instant bank site, and since the said land was owned by the State pursuant to the river-related Acts and subordinate statutes.

B. However, in light of the legislative purport of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Loss when the owner of land incorporated into a river did not receive compensation due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, even if the acquisition by prescription has been completed by occupying the land for 20 years, it shall be deemed that the landowner is merely unable to exercise a real right claim against the State based on ownership, and it shall not be an obstacle to claiming compensation for loss under the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Loss of Ownership

C. Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant for compensation for damages on the instant bank site. In so determining, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the possessor’s status for which the acquisition by prescription of possession has been completed and compensation for damages under the Act on Special Measures, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal

1) The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiffs cannot exercise their right to compensate for damages on the ground that the State could not be deemed to have occupied the remaining land except the instant bank site among the land 1 through 15, on the ground that the State occupied the land after the completion of the statute of limitations for acquiring possession by the State, and subsequently, accepted the Plaintiffs’ claim for compensation for damages under Article 2 of the Act

2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that even if the State actually controlled the land other than the instant bank site among the land Nos. 1 through 15, and did not actively manage it, it should be deemed that it had been occupied if a factual control was recognized in light of the overall circumstances, it should be deemed that it had been occupied. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criteria for determining occupancy, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the factual control of the said land, thereby failing to actively manage the said land.

3) However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the acquisition by prescription against the land remaining other than the instant bank site among the land 1 through 15 was completed, the Plaintiffs ought to be deemed to be entitled to claim compensation against the Defendant under Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Loss of Ownership on the premise that the Plaintiffs lose their ownership. Even if there were errors in the judgment of the lower court regarding the possession of the said land, this could not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, cannot be the grounds for reversal of the judgment below.

B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s assertion that the Nonparty lost its ownership is groundless, on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to support that the circumstance of each land was the same person before the land was divided into the Plaintiff’s fleet and each land of this case, and that the Nonparty disposed of the land to a third party.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and by misapprehending the facts contrary to logical and empirical rules.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs, the part against the plaintiffs among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)