The Story of Receiving 5 Billion Won Compensation After 50 Years for Flooded and Devalued Land by the Hangang River

Sale of 4,403㎡ Land in Songpa-gu from 1973 for 350,000 Won
Court: "Nationalized Due to Major Flood... Original Contract Void as Seller Was Unaware"

A ruling has been made that the Seoul Metropolitan Government must pay a large compensation for losses to the original owner who unknowingly sold land along the Han River in Songpa-gu, Seoul, which was nationalized due to a major flood 50 years ago.

On the 14th, the Administrative Court of Seoul, Administrative Division 1 (Presiding Judge Kang Dong-hyuk) announced that it ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, 12 heirs of Mr. A, in a lawsuit demanding compensation of approximately 4.95 billion KRW from the Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The case dates back to the 1950s. Mr. A, who was a tenant farmer at the time, purchased 1,332 pyeong (4,403㎡) of land in Seongdong-gu (now Songpa-gu), Seoul, in 1959 under the land reform policy by the Republic of Korea government after liberation, which transferred land to cultivators. After Mr. A’s death in 1969, his family inherited the land and sold it in 1973 for 350,000 KRW at the time. The ownership of this land changed hands several times thereafter.

This land became part of the Jamsil District Land Readjustment Project in 1974, and the land registry was closed in 1982. The final owner of the land, Mr. B, received compensation of approximately 420 million KRW from Songpa-gu in 2002 due to incorporation into a river. However, Mr. A’s heirs filed an administrative lawsuit in 2021, claiming that they were unaware that the land had been incorporated into the river and nationalized due to the major flood in August 1972, arguing that the land sale was invalid and that they should receive compensation from the Seoul Metropolitan Government.

In response, the Seoul Metropolitan Government argued that the land was nationalized under the 1974 land readjustment project, and that when Mr. A’s family sold the land in 1973, they also transferred the right to claim compensation for losses, so since Mr. B exercised this right, there was no need to pay again. They also argued that even if Mr. A was entitled to claim compensation, the land at the time was classified as a 'river' rather than 'field,' so the compensation amount should be lower.

However, the court’s judgment differed. The court ruled that the 1973 land sale contract was invalid and that the right to claim compensation could not be considered transferred. The decisive evidence was aerial photographs from the time. The 1966 aerial photos showed the land being used as a field, but the November 1972 photos showed most of the land submerged underwater. The major flood in August 1972 had incorporated the land into the river area. On August 18-19, 1972, Seoul experienced a record-breaking rainfall of 393.6 mm over two days.

The court also stated, "The right to claim compensation for land loss was recognized under the 1984 River Act, and it cannot be considered that the status to receive compensation was transferred." It explained the reason for calculating the compensation by saying, "When the purpose and use of the land at the time of incorporation are unknown, the 'current land use situation' should be considered exceptionally." The court further ruled, "Even if compensation was paid to Mr. B in 2002, it cannot be seen that the obligation to pay compensation to the true owners or successors, the plaintiffs, has disappeared."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.