[2] In a case where Gap et al. claimed against the Korea Water Resources Corporation for the compensation for losses incurred by the reinforcement of the Southern River, the case holding that Gap et al., who newly acquired fishery rights after the construction of the Southern River and the completion of the compensation cannot be deemed to have suffered special losses due to the implementation of the dam reinforcement work, and thus, cannot claim for the compensation for such losses or damages

[3] Whether the validity or nature of the previous fishery permit or report continues where the previous fishery permit or report is obtained or filed after the period of validity of the permit or report related to fishery expired (negative)

[4] In a case where a holder of fishery right gives up all claims for compensation due to the execution of a development project when he obtains a license and obtains a permit for extension of a period, and the father’s effect (effective in principle) is entered in the original register of fishery rights, and whether such effect extends to the assignee of fishery rights (affirmative)

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Compensation for special sacrifice of property caused by a legitimate exercise of public authority, such as the implementation of a public project, is recognized as compensation for losses in light of the overall equitable burden. Thus, the issue of whether the claimant suffered losses due to the implementation of the public project has the right to receive compensation shall be determined at the time of the implementation of the relevant public project. As long as the approval of an implementation plan for the implementation of the public project and the subsequent public notice was made, various permits or reports conducted for the operation after the implementation of the public project are based on the premise of restrictions already established under an objective premise of restrictions. Unlike those of the fishermen who already completed the fishery permit or report prior to the implementation of the public project, even if the interests gained by the fishery owner are reduced due to the implementation of the said public project, it cannot be deemed that the special loss subject to the compensation, even if the fishery owner is not deemed to have been affected due to the implementation of the said public project. In the case of a permit or report related to the fishery project, whether the permission or report was made under such restrictions shall be determined at the time of the relevant permit or report, but not based on the already expired fishery permit or report (see, etc.).

B. Based on the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs’ fishery rights cannot be deemed to have suffered special losses, which are subject to compensation for losses, due to the implementation of the Gangnam Dam Reinforcement Construction, on the grounds that the Minister of Construction and Transportation established a basic plan for the Southern Dam Reinforcement Construction on September 16, 1989, and publicly announced the basic plan including the total storage quantity and discharge amount of the Southern Dam due to the Reinforcement Construction, and on June 14, 1990, the implementation plan for the said Reinforcement Construction was approved and publicly announced on June 14, 1990. The Plaintiffs all were the persons who acquired or renewed fishery rights between December 193 and January 2007.

C. According to the records, most of the plaintiffs are those who acquired or renewed fishery rights after June 14, 1990, which was the date of approval and announcement of the implementation plan of the Gangnam Dam Reinforcement, or those who acquired or renewed fishery rights after June 14, 1990, and some of the plaintiffs are those who obtained fishery rights from 1987 to 1989, prior to the approval and announcement of the implementation plan of the said Reinforcement Dam Reinforcement, and as of June 14, 1990, the implementation plan of the Southern Dam Reinforcement was approved and publicly notified. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below that some of the plaintiffs' fishery rights did not have been acquired or renewed under the status that restrictions imposed upon the implementation of the Southern Dam Reinforcement Construction were already finalized.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence adopted by the court below, the Nam River was started around 1962 and completed October 7, 1969. The Ministry of Construction and Transportation anticipated damage to fishery due to the outflow flow flowing into private only due to the completion of the Gangnam Dam construction around 1969, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation compensated for damage to the fishing right holder of Scheoncheon-do, and the need to increase the function of the dam through the reinforcement of the Southern River after that rise, and the Minister of Construction and Transportation has formulated a master plan for the Gangnam Dam Reinforcement Construction on September 16, 1989, and approved and publicly announced the implementation plan on June 14, 1990. Accordingly, the defendant completed the reinforcement construction of the Southern River Reinforcement and completed the reinforcement construction on November 1, 199, and the plan to reduce the volume of the remaining river dried dam so that the total volume of water stored increases and the discharge of water can be changed as a flood control plan.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the plaintiffs' fishery rights are merely limited fishery rights that have been newly acquired after around 1969 after the construction of the Southern River and the completion of compensation and that have to bear the damage that may arise from the release of the Southern River within the scope of the design stream of the Southern River, and due to the construction for the reinforcement of the Southern River (the construction for the reinforcement of the Southern River cannot be deemed to have been newly constructed a new Gangseo Dam whose identity with the existing Gangseo Dam was lost due to the construction for the reinforcement of the Southern River), it cannot be deemed that the volume of design bank was reduced rather, and the damage that the plaintiffs have to bear after the said reinforcement construction has increased. Accordingly, the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have suffered special losses that are subject to compensation for losses due to the implementation of the construction for the reinforcement of the Southern Dam, and therefore no compensation for

Therefore, it is erroneous for the court below to consider the base date for determining the compensation or damages of the plaintiffs as June 14, 1990, which is the date of approval and public notice of the implementation plan for the reinforcement of the Gangnam Dam. However, the conclusion that all the claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed is justified, and therefore, the ground of appeal on this part is not acceptable.

D. The allegation in the grounds of appeal purporting that the implementation plan for the reinforcement of the Southern Dam is effective only to the area of land such as flooded land or construction site, and it does not constitute the area of fishery damage caused by the plaintiffs, and thus it is not confirmed that restrictions on the plaintiffs' fishery rights are not finalized. It cannot be accepted as it is merely an independent opinion.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In the case of a license or report with respect to fisheries, the validity of the license or report naturally becomes extinct upon the expiration of the validity period, and even if a license or report is obtained or filed again, the validity or nature of the previous license or report cannot be deemed to continue due to the renewal of the validity or nature of the license or report (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du5728, Jul. 28, 201).

The court below is justified in rejecting the plaintiffs' assertion on the premise that the term of validity of the previous fishery permit is renewed as a matter of course upon the lapse of the term of validity of the previous fishery permit, and that the new fishery permit newly obtained after the expiration of the term is renewed only for the period of the previous fishery permit and its nature does not continue. Thus, the plaintiffs' fishery right acquired from December 14, 1993 to January 14, 2007 is identical to the fishery right that was effective at the time of approval and public notice of the implementation plan for the reinforcement of the Southern Dam at the time of June 14, 199, and only the period is renewed. In so doing, the court below did not err in the misapprehension

3. As to the third ground for appeal

According to Article 15 of the former Fisheries Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990), if it is deemed necessary for the public interest, restrictions or conditions may be attached to the license or permit for fisheries. Thus, if a holder of fishery right gives up all claims for compensation due to the implementation of a development project when he/she obtains a license or obtains permission for extension of the period, and if a father is entered in the fishery right register, the father's effect shall be valid, and this shall also be extended to the transferee thereafter (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da17010 of Jun. 22, 1993). Further, the father's effect shall not be readily denied unless there are special circumstances to deem that it violates law, is impossible to implement it, or it violates the principle of proportionality or equality, or deviates from the limitation, such as significantly impairing the essential effect of an administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da57419, Nov. 24, 199).

① According to Article 5 of the Guidelines on Disposition of Fishery Business in the Damage Districts Caused by Flood Control of the Southern River from the Southern River from the Southern River from October 20, 1973, the lower court determined that “When it is intended to issue a new fishery license in the case of the Gangnam River Release Area, it is possible to issue a license only if the voluntary declaration of intention not to demand damage compensation for the damaged fishery right, damaged facilities, products, etc. is attached to the voluntary declaration of intention not to demand damage compensation for the damage.” ② Under Article 32 of the Regulations on the Disposition of Fishery Business established on February 2, 1976 by Gyeongnam-do, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to claim damage compensation for the remaining river facilities or the fish farming products to the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to claim damage compensation for the remaining river facilities or the fish farming products even if the fishery right is transferred to anyone within the license period.”

In addition, on October 15, 1993, the court below acknowledged that some other plaintiffs submitted a written application to the effect that "a permit for static fishing shall be granted to the political net fishing gear that has been voluntarily removed as part of ensuring the livelihood of the citizens of the Scheon-gun, and a permit for fishery shall not be paid any damages to the State even if it would be damaged in the future." The head of the office of defendant and the head of the office of the river construction, etc., who acquired the fishery right to the above plaintiffs on condition that they would not pay any damages or losses to any matter arising in the future at the above request of the above plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court below determined that the above plaintiffs waived their right to claim for damages or losses, since they expressed their intent not to claim for damages or losses in the future while acquiring the fishery right.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of assistant officers as alleged in the grounds of appeal

4. As to the fourth ground for appeal

The lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Defendant’s failure to conduct an environmental impact assessment on the Seocheon River which had the Plaintiffs’ fishing ground while implementing the Gangnam Dam Reinforcement was unlawful, on the grounds that, in order to claim damages due to the failure to conduct an environmental impact assessment, the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages should have the status of interested parties, such as residents in the area subject to the assessment at the time of the implementation of the project subject to the environmental impact assessment, on the premise that the subject of the claim for damages should be in the position of interested parties, such as the residents in the area subject to the assessment, etc.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the environmental impact assessment was implemented, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant, who can be seen by the records, conducted the environmental impact assessment after consultation with the Environment Management Office pursuant to the former Environmental Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 4257 of Aug. 1, 1990) which was applied at the time of the implementation of the Gangnam Dam Reinforcement Construction Project; (b) the flood control function of the dam was strengthened due to the construction of the Southern River Reinforcement Project; (c) the planned discharge volume of the dam was significantly decreased due to the decline in the volume of the daily environmental impact caused by the discharge; and (d) the Defendant was excluded from the object

5. Ground of appeal No. 5

The court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant's massive discharge of fresh water stored in the Southern River caused marine pollution, thereby causing the plaintiffs' compensation for damages to the fishery that the plaintiffs suffered, on the grounds that the defendant's construction or reinforcement of dams for the purpose of flood control, water supply, etc., and discharge of fresh water for flood control, etc. can not be deemed as a tort by negligence, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant's act of discharging fresh water constitutes a tort.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the

6. Regarding ground of appeal No. 6

The lower court determined that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have the obligation to establish and implement compensation measures, etc. in accordance with the results of the service investigation, solely with the agreement entered into between the Fishery Damage Promotion Committee and the Defendant and the content of the agreement.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the

7. Conclusion

All appeals are 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.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)