Whether it is possible to fill up the submerged land and to promote ownership (negative)

If the utility of the land has been lost due to the collapse of the land due to the collapse of the land and the inflow of the water above at all times due to the impossibility of its restoration, the private right to the land shall be permanently extinguished due to the collapse, and even if the land so seized has been re-emuped, the previous private right shall be re-exploded and it is impossible for the previous owner to acquire the ownership again.

Article 211 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da213 Decided April 4, 1967, 70Da2756 Decided March 9, 197, 72Da2015 Decided January 16, 1973, 79Da2094 Decided February 26, 1980, 79Da666 Decided August 19, 1980, 80Da2523 Decided June 23, 1981

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Jong-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of the Daegu Metropolitan City

Daegu District Court Decision 82Na839 delivered on June 15, 1983

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the land was no economic value of the land remaining in the area of this case for a specific period of time after the Defendant’s flood as a result of this case’s large flood in 1929, which was located in the south of the river, as the land was originally divided into 371 square meters in Daegu-si ( Address 1 omitted), Daegu-gu ( Address 270 omitted), the land in question, which was the land in question. However, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land was no economic value of the land in question for a specific period of time since the Defendant’s flood, which was no economic value of the land remaining in the area of this case, as the land in question, remaining in the area of this case, which was located in the area of this case, due to the Defendant’s large flood.

However, if the utility of the land has been lost due to the decline of the land in the site of a river due to the collapse of the land, and the restoration of the land has become difficult, the previous private right to the land shall not re-be acquired the ownership again (Supreme Court Decision 67Da213 delivered on April 4, 1967; Supreme Court Decision 70Da2756 delivered on March 9, 197; Supreme Court Decision 72Da2015 delivered on January 16, 197; Supreme Court Decision 79Da2094 delivered on February 26, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 79Da666 delivered on August 19, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 80Da2523 delivered on June 23, 198; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da4966 delivered on June 24, 200).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)