[2] The case holding that since the administrative agency Gap did not establish a fishing village fraternity Eul, which covers a fishing ground including the waters adjacent to the area Eul, which is not located within the business area of the fishing village fraternity Gap, at the time when the fishery business license was granted to the fishing village fraternity Eul, the above license disposition cannot be deemed unlawful, even if the waters adjacent to the area Gap does not belong to the business area of the fishing village fraternity Gap, and it shall not be deemed that the period was set as 10 years when the extension of the fishery business license was made,

[2] The case holding that since the administrative agency Gap's fishing village fraternity did not establish Eul's fishing village fraternity which covers the fishing ground including the waters adjacent to the area A, which is not within the business area of Gap's fishing village fraternity, at the time of licensing the fishery business, the above licensing disposition cannot be deemed unlawful, even if the neighboring area Gap's fishing village fraternity's business area is not within the business area of Gap's fishing village fraternity, and it shall not be deemed that the period was set as 10 years in the extension disposition of the fishery business license, and that

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On April 30, 1997, the defendant issued a license for communal fishing business (hereinafter referred to as the "license disposition in this case") with the content as shown in the separate sheet from April 30, 1997 to April 29, 2007 with respect to the defendant joining the defendant, located in the Dong-gu Sea (hereinafter omitted), Nam-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-ri, Do-ri, and 103.5 (hereinafter referred to as "the fishing ground in this case") as the target fishing ground.

B. On November 21, 2001, the Plaintiff’s fishing village fraternity consisting of fishermen residing in the South-gu Dong-gu ○○-ri, South-gu, and obtained authorization for the establishment from the Defendant on November 21, 2001, with the name of fishing village fraternity “○○-ri fishing village fraternity”, “○○-ri fishing village fraternity in the East Sea”, and “16 members of fishing village fraternity.”

C. On April 30, 1997, the Defendant received an application for extension of the validity term of the instant disposition from the Defendant joining the Defendant, and on March 14, 2007, issued a disposition extending the validity term of a fishery license from April 30, 2007 to April 29, 2017 (hereinafter “instant extension disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 6-1 to 6, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the extension disposition of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Even if Article 14(2) of the former Fisheries Act provides that permission for extension of fishing right shall be granted unless there is a ground for denying the extension of fishing right, this is based on the premise that the original disposition of this case is not unlawful. The Defendant’s disposition of this case, which caused the Defendant to the Defendant’s Intervenor, was unlawful since the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s fishing village fraternity’s business area and determined the scope of license. Thus, the instant extension

(2) Even if the Defendant could make the instant extension disposition including the Plaintiff’s business area, taking into account the fact that the Plaintiff’s business area is included in the Plaintiff’s fishing village fraternity’s business area in the instant licensing disposition that was received by the Defendant joining the Defendant, the Defendant’s extension disposition of the instant case, which was rendered ten years, a maximum period of permission for extension, even though the Defendant should take full account of such circumstances pursuant to Article 14(2) of the Fisheries Act, should be set within the scope of 10 years, by setting a short period of time,

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

(1) Legal nature of the instant extension disposition

Article 14 (2) of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 5977 of Apr. 15, 199; hereinafter the same) provides that "the head of a Si/Gun/autonomous Gu shall grant an extension of the term of validity within the scope of ten years from the expiration of the license upon request of a fishery right holder, except where a ground falling under the proviso of paragraph (1) or any subparagraph of Article 34 (1) exists. In such cases, the total extension period of permission shall not exceed ten years if such extension is permitted on several occasions." The proviso of Article 4 (3) provides that "the cases prescribed by Presidential Decree as necessary for the protection of fishery resources and coordination of fisheries," and accordingly, Article 14 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20351 of Oct. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries may, upon request of a fishery right holder for the protection of fishery resources under the provisions of Article 7 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act.

(2) Whether the extension disposition of this case is legitimate

First, in light of each of the provisions of Articles 9 and 16(1) of the former Fisheries Act regarding the illegality of the licensing disposition of this case, in granting community fishing licenses to fishing village fraternities, in principle, it is possible to grant a license to fishing village fraternities for fishing grounds located within the relevant fishing village fraternity; however, even if the area subject to licensing goes outside the business area of other fishing village fraternities, if the area does not fall within the business area of the fishing village fraternity and there is no conflict between fishing village fraternities, the fishery license may be granted to fishing village fraternities located outside the business area; and even if the area of the fishery of this case does not fall within the business area of the defendant, the fishery village fraternity was not established in the area adjacent to △△-ri at the time of the instant licensing disposition, as long as the fishery of this case, which is located within the business area adjacent to △△-ri, even though the area of the fishery of this case does not fall within the business area of the defendant, the defendant cannot be said to be illegal.

As above, even if the Plaintiff fishing village fraternity was established as a business area adjacent to the above △△△ Ri after the instant license disposition, such change of circumstances alone cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course. In the event of the above change of circumstances, there is no legal provision that can revoke or withdraw the original license disposition on the waters adjacent to the above △△△△ Ri, and therefore, the Plaintiff fishing village fraternity cannot dispute the validity of the instant license disposition on the ground of the above change of circumstances, and the Defendant cannot ex officio revoke or withdraw the instant license disposition.

Thus, the defendant shall extend the period of fishery license upon the application of the defendant joining the defendant, who is a fishery right holder, pursuant to the proviso of Article 14 (1) of the former Fisheries Act and the subparagraphs of Article 34 (1) of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as "reasons for refusing to extend the period") pursuant to the provisions of Article 14 (2) of the same Act. This part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since it is apparent that the plaintiff's assertion about the disposition of this case does not constitute grounds for refusing to extend the period, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is grounds for

(3) Whether or not the discretion in the decision on extension has been exceeded or abused

The Defendant’s extended disposition of this case requires protection of the expectation interests of the Defendant and its members of the instant fishing ground in light of the provisions of Article 8(1) of the Fisheries Act, as long as it is acknowledged that the Defendant’s extended disposition of this case may not extend the period from 10 years to 10 years to 10 years, and that the Defendant’s extended fishery business license under the provisions of Article 4(3) of the same Act may not extend the period to 10 years to 4 years to 10 years to 10 years to 4 years to 10 years to 10 years to 10 years to 4 years to 10 years to 10 years to 4 years to 10 years to 10 years to 10 years to 10 years to 10 years to 4 years to 10 years to 10 years to 10 years to 10 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 1.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the extension disposition against the defendant's assistant intervenor is unlawful is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment] Drawings, Related Acts and subordinate statutes: (Omission)

Judges Choi Choi-sik (Presiding Judge)