Main Issues

Notice of cancellation of the Public Waters Reclamation License by the Minister of Construction and Transportation is not an administrative disposition that is merely a notification of fact and loses its effect.

Summary of Judgment

The Minister of Construction and Transportation’s notification on the invalidation of the public water reclamation license is not an administrative disposition that is merely a notification of fact and loses the effect of the license.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 25 (1) of the Public Waters Reclamation Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellee

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

original decision

Seoul High Court Decision 69Gu32 delivered on May 13, 1969

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Article 10 and Article 25 (1) 2 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act provides that a person who has obtained a license for reclamation of public waters shall complete the construction within the period designated by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, unless there is a legitimate extension of the period of time under Article 10 (2) of the said Act, and that the license for reclamation shall lose its effect if the construction is not completed within the said period of time. Thus, if a person who obtained a license for reclamation of public waters fails to complete the construction within the construction completion period without obtaining a permit for extension of the construction completion period from the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the license for reclamation of public waters shall not be required to take other administrative disposition, and the license for reclamation shall lose its effect as a matter of course without obtaining a permit for the extension of the construction completion period from the Minister of Construction and Transportation. Accordingly, even if the Minister of Construction and Transportation notified the person who obtained the license loses its effect, this cannot be deemed to have been justified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s application for construction completion of the reclamation license (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3206888, supra.).