2. [Attachment] The plaintiffs' respective claims against the defendant Thai-gun and the defendant Agency for Defense Development and the Republic of Korea as stated in the damages list are dismissed, and all of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants stated in the list of dismissed persons are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiffs indicated in the damages list and the Defendant Defense Development Agency, and the part arising between the Republic of Korea shall be borne by the Plaintiffs indicated in the damages list, respectively, and the part arising between the Plaintiffs indicated in the damages list and the Defendant Taean-gun. [Attachment] The part arising between the Plaintiffs indicated in the damages list and the Defendants shall be borne by the Plaintiffs indicated in the damages list.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) Status of a party;

[Attachment] The plaintiffs are small fishermen who live in the port area in the Yanan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and engage in various coastal fisheries. The defendant Agency for Defense Development (hereinafter "the defendant research institute") is a special law for the technical investigation, research, development, and testing of weapons, equipment, and materials necessary for national defense established by the Agency for Defense Development Act, and the investigation, research, and test of science and technology related thereto. The defendant Republic of Korea supervises the target project of the Agency for Defense Development through the Administrator of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration to whom the Minister of National Defense, who is the administrative agency to which he belongs, delegated the supervisory authority.

B. Establishment of a marine shooting range in the Republic of Korea

In around 1978, the Minister of National Defense, an administrative agency belonging to the Republic of Korea, established the first marine shooting range (13km of shooting range) and second marine shooting range (2km of shooting range) for the shooting of guns, ammunition test shootings (13km of shooting range), and the third marine shooting range (180km of shooting range) for the shooting of leading weapons test shooting. In around 1981, the Minister of National Defense, an administrative agency belonging to the Republic of Korea, established the fourth marine shooting range (35km of shooting range) for the shooting of firearms and ammunition test shooting, around 1987, the 5 marine shooting range (14km of shooting range) for the shooting of leading weapons test shooting. In addition, the 194 gun, around 194, the 65km range of shooting range for the shooting test shooting was established.

In addition, the vicinity of the marine shooting range of this case was set up as a research facility area of war equipment by the Ministry of National Defense on May 1, 1977, and the military facility protection area was expanded by the Ministry of National Defense on December 15, 1989 and the military facility protection area was adjusted by 24464-3478 at the time of the Ministry of National Defense on December 15, 1989, and on October 20, 2000, the area was set up as a military facility protection area under the Protection of Military Installations Act by the Minister of National Defense, such as that the area was set up as a military facility protection area under the Military Installations Act.

C. Use of the test site in this case by the Defendant Research Institute

After the establishment of the maritime shooting range of this case, the Defendant Research Institute continued to conduct a maritime test shooting for the performance test of guns, ammunitions, and leading weapons in the maritime shooting range. The Defendant Research Institute conducted a maritime test shooting for the marine test shooting range of guns, ammunitions, and guiding weapons, etc. on an average of 220 days per annum, and conducted a test shooting for leading weapons once every two months (hereinafter “the marine test shooting of this case”).

As safety measures for the test shooting of this case, the defendant research institute prepared and reported the maritime shooting plan to the Joint Chiefs of Staff 45 days prior to the date of the test shooting in accordance with the Guidelines for the Safety Operation of the Maritime Shooting Range (Joint 33823-58), which was carried out by the Minister of National Defense, and obtained approval from the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff 20 days prior to the shooting, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff notified the Do governor every month in accordance with the above maritime shooting plan to the Do governor, and requested the safety operation guidance for the launch vessel. In fact, while conducting the test shooting, the defendant research institute received support from the Navy and the Air Force for the safety of the marine area and controlled the vessel's access to the marine area using the directly controlled vessel (hereinafter referred to as the "the entry control of the marine shooting range of this case").

D. Restriction on fishing by fishermen due to the access control of the instant case

The fishermen in the vicinity of the marine shooting range of this case were subject to restrictions on the operation on the sea of this case due to the entry control of the defendant research institute every time the marine shooting range of this case was established.

In addition, the plaintiffs engaged in various coastal fisheries upon obtaining permission for fisheries in the neighboring sea areas of the instant maritime shooting range, as stated in the "The current status table of fishing vessel registration and fishery permission," among which the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff fishermen") stated in the compensation list, were engaged in fisheries with permission for fisheries in the neighboring sea areas of the instant maritime shooting range from March 16, 2004, previous three years prior to the filing date of the instant lawsuit, or were engaged in fisheries with the vessel issued a certificate of shipment by the Gun of Taean, and was engaged in various coastal fisheries with permission for fisheries in whole or in part for the period from March 16, 2004 to the filing date of the instant lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as the "the claim period for damages of this case").

[The above fishermen's fishery status is recognized by the statements in Gap's 5 through 819 (the copy of the fishing permit and the copy of the shipping certificate). The defendant research institute stated that the plaintiff fishermen's "the period of validity" of "the plaintiff fishermen's fishing vessel registration and fishery permit status table" of "the plaintiff fishermen's fishing vessel registration and fishery permit status table" of "the plaintiff fishermen's fishing vessel registration and fishery permit status table" cannot be viewed as being engaged in the fishery business with permission in the vicinity of the above maritime shooting range for the above period because the plaintiff's fishing permit registration or permit was not verified. However, although the plaintiff's fishing permit register and coastal fishery permit register (BB No. 26-1, 2, and 3) presented as the above grounds are not the period of compensation for damages of this case, that is, the plaintiff fishermen's fishing vessel registration period and coastal fishery permit register were not the period for seeking compensation for damages, but the above evidence alone is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff fishermen's fishery range had been cancelled or the plaintiff's fishery permit had never been established.

E. Claims for damages of fishermen nearby the marine shooting range of the instant case

In 193, the fishermen nearby the instant maritime shooting range filed a lawsuit claiming compensation against the Defendant Republic of Korea for damage recovery by asserting that the fishery was limited due to the entry control of the instant case, and some fishermen were dismissed on the ground that the fishermen filed a lawsuit claiming compensation against the Defendant Republic of Korea in around 1995, and filed a civil petition seeking compensation from the National Ombudsman around 1998 and around 2001. However, the entry control of the instant case constitutes a restriction that does not require compensation under the Fisheries Act.

In 2002, fishermen filed a petition for the amendment of the Fisheries Act or the enactment of a special law for remedying damage to fishermen, which led to the submission of the relevant special law to the National Assembly, but the special law was automatically discarded due to the expiration of the term of office of the National Assembly.

[Based on Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 819, 822 through 826 (including each number if there is a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 through 6, 25, 32, Eul evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 to 1, Eul evidence 1, witness non-party 1 and 2's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole.

2. Determination on the Plaintiff fishermen’s claims against Defendant Defense Development Agency and Korea

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

(1) The parties' assertion

The plaintiff fishermen's above entry control activities for the shooting test of this case constitute "a case necessary for national defense and military business" under Article 34 (1) 5 of the Fisheries Act, and although the defendant research institute was obligated to compensate the plaintiff fishermen for losses, the plaintiff fishermen were engaged in illegal activities restricting the plaintiff fishermen's fishery by controlling entry of this case without legitimate compensation, and the defendant Republic of Korea participated in the above illegal acts by ordering and supervising the above entry control activities. Thus, the above defendants asserted that the plaintiff is liable for damages.

The defendant research institute and the defendant Republic of Korea asserted that the above entry control action for the shooting test of this case is "necessary for national defense" under Article 34 (1) 2 and 3 of the Fisheries Act and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act, and that the defendant research institute and the defendant Republic of Korea are not liable for compensation due to the above entry control with respect to the plaintiff's fishermen who are only the fishery right holder and the plaintiff's research institute and the defendant Republic of Korea under the proviso of Article 81 (1) 1 of the Fisheries Act.

(2) Defendant research institute’s liability for damages

Even though the provision on compensation for losses should be applied or by analogy applied, if a loss occurred to a person who has the right to receive compensation due to the implementation of public works without such compensation, it constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da11529, Nov. 23, 199, etc.). The fact that the defendant research institute did not compensate the plaintiff's fishermen for losses due to the access control of this case does not conflict between the parties, and thus, the access control of this case is subject to compensation.

Article 34(1) of the Fisheries Act separate provisions for “cases necessary for military training, security of major military bases or national defense” (Article 2 and 3) and “cases necessary for national defense and military business” (Article 34(1)2 and 3 of the Fisheries Act (Article 81(1) of the Fisheries Act). In the case of Article 34(1)2 and 3 of the Fisheries Act, Article 34(1)5 of the Fisheries Act provides that no compensation for losses shall be made, while Article 34(1)5 of the Fisheries Act provides that compensation for losses shall be made in the case of Article 34(1)5 of the Fisheries Act.

In addition, Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act lists the cases necessary for military training under Article 34(1)2 and 3 of the Act, protection of major military bases, or national defense under Article 34(1)3 of the Act, ① cases where military training is conducted on the sea or coastal areas (Article 14(1)1); ② cases where military training is conducted on the protection of major military bases located on the sea or coastal areas (Article 2); ③ cases where it is necessary to prevent or defend enemy's infiltration on the coast (Article 3); ④ cases where it is necessary for safety operation, such as the avoidance of fishing vessel's escape (Article 4); ⑤ other cases where the Minister of National Defense deems it necessary on the strategy and tactical basis and agreement with the head of the administrative agency concerned (Article 5). As such, the test of this case constitutes a case where the defendant research institute's technical investigation, research, development and test of weapons and materials necessary for national defense as part of its intended business, and the test of this case constitutes a case where it is necessary for national defense under Article 14(5) of the Fisheries Act.

On the other hand, the defendant research institute asserts that the entry control of this case is "where it is necessary for the protection of the main military base located on the sea or the coast" under Article 19 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act. The fact that the marine shooting range of this case is set up in the protection area of military facilities in the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, where the launch base of the marine shooting range of this case is installed, as seen above. However, in full view of the whole arguments in the statement No. 1-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 1-2, only the land area (including sand president) is set in the restricted protection area where access control is permitted, and only the marine area (within the radius of 1km from the coast) is set as the restricted protection area where the entry control of this case is prohibited. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the entry control of this case was based on the marine installations protection area of this case, and it cannot be said that the main military base of this case is necessary.

Therefore, under Article 34(1)5, the main text of Article 81(1)1, and Article 81(3) of the Fisheries Act, which was enforced at the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant research institute is liable for damages to the Plaintiff fishermen by continuing to conduct the entry control of the instant maritime shooting range from the time of the establishment of the instant maritime shooting range without any compensation, even though the Plaintiff fishermen were obligated to compensate for losses due to the restriction on the Plaintiff fishermen’s fishery due to the entry control of the instant case.

(3) Defendant Republic of Korea’s liability

As seen earlier, Defendant Republic of Korea established the instant maritime shooting range, and led and supervised the Defendant’s research institute’s activities to control the test shooting and access to the said maritime shooting range without compensation for the Plaintiff fishermen. As such, Defendant Republic of Korea is liable for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff fishermen as joint tort with the Defendant research institute.

(4) Risk approach defenses

The Defendant Research Institute, and the Republic of Korea asserts that even if tort liability of the said Defendants is recognized, the Plaintiff fishermen started the fishery in the above sea area with the intent to recognize the fact that there is a limitation of fishery due to access control over the neighboring sea areas of the instant marine shooting range and thus, the Defendant Research Institute and the Republic of Korea’s liability for damages should be exempted.

According to the evidence mentioned above, the plaintiff fishermen acquired fishery permits for the neighboring sea areas in around 1994 after the completion of the maritime shooting range of 194, such as "the plaintiff fishermen's registration of fishing vessels and fishery permission list". Since the above maritime shooting range was almost every day, the above maritime shooting range was widely known. Since the above marine shooting range was established, the plaintiff fishermen should have obtained fishery rights for the neighboring sea areas without recognizing or recognizing the limitation of fishery by negligence after the test shooting range of this case was established. However, considering the characteristics of the area where the plaintiffs reside and the economic activities of such area, the plaintiff fishermen should have acquired fishery rights for the above neighboring sea areas. However, unless there are special grounds for criticism, such as the plaintiff's commencement of fishery business in the above sea area to use the above restriction of fishery as the characteristics of the area where they are residing, or did not recognize the restriction of fishery by negligence, it cannot be deemed that the above restriction of fishery was justified due to damage caused by the above fishery. Thus, the plaintiff fishermen's compensation liability should be determined in accordance with the principle of equity compensation for damages.

(5) Extinctive prescription defense

The Defendant Research Institute asserts that the extinctive prescription expired since all of the instant maritime shooting ranges were established from 1978 to 1994 and began to use the said maritime shooting range from that time, so even if the Plaintiff fishermen were to have claimed compensation for damages or claimed compensation for damages in relation to the installation of the said maritime shooting range, the statute of limitations expired since the Plaintiff fishermen did not make a claim for ten

In the case of continuous illegal acts such as the access control due to the test shooting of this case, damage occurred from new illegal acts each day, and in calculating the starting point of the extinctive prescription, the extinctive prescription period from the time when each damage was known to each day, and the fishermen sought compensation for damage that occurred within 3 years from the date when the lawsuit of this case was filed. Thus, the above assertion for the expiration of the extinctive prescription is without merit.

B. Scope of liability for damages

(1) Method of calculating the amount of losses of the Plaintiff fishermen under relevant laws and regulations;

The plaintiff fishermen seek compensation for damages for the previous three years on the basis of the filing date of the instant lawsuit. The amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff fishermen from shooting tests and access control in the instant maritime shooting range without due compensation procedures. Of compensation for the above three years, the amount equivalent to the ratio of the period during which the plaintiff fishermen engaged in the fishery business after obtaining a fishery permit during the pertinent damages compensation period. According to the provisions of Article 81(4) of the Fisheries Act and Article 62 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act, where the permitted or reported fishery business is restricted, the amount of losses for the fishery business shall be limited to "amount calculated taking into account the period of restriction, degree of restriction, etc. of fishery business" in accordance with the calculation method of attached Table 4-2(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act, which falls under the amount of compensation where the permitted or reported fishery business is revoked, and the amount of damages shall be limited to "amount calculated by adding the residual value of the fishing vessel, fishing gear, or facilities to the amount of annual profits for three years."

(2) Results of commission of appraisal of damages caused by access control of the instant case

As a result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal to the Director of the Fisheries Research Institute for the above 2-year fishery research institute, comprehensively taking into account the results of each fact-finding on the Director of the Fisheries Research Institute for the above 3-year fishery research institute for the above 0-year fishery research institute, the amount of compensation for the plaintiffs shall, in principle, be the difference between the amount of annual earnings for the three-year period prior to the control of entry under the above 4-year fishery research institute for the above 0-year fishery research institute for the above 4-year fishery research institute for the reasons that the amount of annual earnings for the above 0-year fishery research institute for the above 0-year fishery research institute for the above 0-year fishery research institute for the above 0-year fishery research institute for the above 0-year fishery research institute for the above 0-year fishery research institute for the above 0-year fishery research institute for the 0-year fishery research institute for the above 0-year fishery research institute for the above 0-year fishery research institute for the above 2-year fishery research institute for the plaintiff 200-day.

(3) Determination on the amount of losses suffered by the plaintiff fishermen

On the other hand, the defendant research institute stated that the amount of losses calculated by the president of the Korea Fisheries Research and Research Institute (hereinafter “the appraisal loss of this case”) as stated in the above paragraph (2) is under the premise that the defendant research institute’s access to the entire sea areas adjacent to the maritime shooting range of this case from 08:30:00 a.m. to 19:00 each day, and the fishermen cannot engage in fishing activities including departure during the above hours due to the above entry control. ① The defendant research institute asserts that when conducting shooting tests at the maritime shooting test of this case, the shot project of this case falls short of the target point, i.e., an anticipated coal landing point, and the shot 2 km to 3 km away from the anticipated point of view, and that the vessel traffic or fishing operation of the vessel is restricted only to the dangerous areas, and that the remaining areas of the vessel of this case are less than 20% of the total sea areas of the vessel of this case, without any restriction or control of the fishing range of the plaintiff 2.

The testimony of Non-Party 1 is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant research institute’s testimony does not have any damage to the fishery activities in the area other than the above fishermen’s access control section. However, there is no evidence to accept all of the aforementioned Defendant research institute’s arguments. On the other hand, even if the aforementioned evidence were to be stated in the evidence Nos. 9, 10, 13 through 23, 33, and 34, the Defendant research institute’s “Maritime Shooting Plan” means that the fishery activities conducted by the Defendant research institute were less than the above fishermen’s operating hours to be less than 9:30 p.m. to 12:0 p.m. to 13:0 p.m. to 18:00 p.m. to 100 p.m. to 100 p.m. to 10m. to 10m. to 10m. to 20m. to 20m. to 30m.

Furthermore, in a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages due to nonperformance, where it is deemed that property damage was actually incurred, but it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage in light of the nature of the case, the court may determine the amount of damage by taking into account all relevant indirect facts, such as the relationship between the parties as revealed by the result of examination of evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the background leading up to the nonperformance of obligation and the occurrence of property damage therefrom, the nature of damage, and various circumstances after the occurrence of damage (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da64627, Sept. 10, 200; 2010Da40505, Oct. 14, 2010). The same applies to tort liability. In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the amount of damage for three years by the Plaintiff fishermen due to the access control of this case (hereinafter “the amount of damage of this case”) corresponds to 50% of the appraised loss of this case.

(iv)a reduction due to a risk approach;

As seen earlier, in light of the fact that the fishermen were either aware of or without negligence of the fact that the instant marine shooting range was being established, the fishermen obtained a fishery permit in the neighboring sea areas of the instant marine shooting range with knowledge of or without negligence, and the restriction on fishery as seen in the instant case is a restriction on economic activities, and it is possible to reduce damage depending on which they would be able to choose any kind of fishing method, unlike the infringement on their body as long as they reside in the noise area, such as aircraft noise, and thus, it is possible to reduce damage to the Plaintiff’s research institute and the Republic of Korea’s liability amount for damage on the ground that they were exposed to danger by themselves.

(5) Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant research institute, and the Republic of Korea are liable to compensate each of the plaintiffs fishermen for damages during the damages period corresponding to 50% of each of the losses of this case (i.e., 50% of the appraisal losses of this case against the plaintiff fishermen), and the amount of damages according to the ratio of the period during which the plaintiff fishermen are deemed to have engaged in fisheries with the fishery permission during the damages period (attached Form) in the damages compensation list (=25% of each appraisal losses against the plaintiff fishermen x 25% of each appraisal losses (=50% of each appraisal losses of the plaintiff fishermen x 1,095 days), and each of the above amounts shall be paid by the plaintiff fishermen from the date of the damages compensation period to March 23, 2007 on the records that the defendant research institute is the next day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, until March 24, 2007 on the records that the defendant Republic of Korea is a copy of the complaint of this case from March 24, 2007.

2. Determination on the Plaintiff fishermen’s claims against Defendant Thai-gun

The Plaintiff fishermen claimed damages against the Defendant Thai-gun by asserting that Defendant Thai-gun failed to perform the duty of commission to prevent illegal acts, such as the access control of this case, without the Defendant Research Institute’s compensation. However, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant Thai-gun forced the research institute to compensate the Plaintiff fishermen, or had the duty or authority to prevent test shooting or access control without the aforementioned compensation, and there is no other ground to recognize the responsibilities of the Defendant Thai-gun. Thus, the Plaintiff fishermen’s claims against the Defendant Thai-gun are without merit.

3. [Attachment] Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants stated in the list of dismissed persons

A. [Attachment] The Plaintiffs to be indicated in the list of dismissed persons are claiming damages against the Defendants by asserting that they have suffered damages that are restricted from fishery due to the entry control of this case.

B. Plaintiffs who are not acknowledged to have obtained fishery permission

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs, as stated above, engaged in fisheries with the permission from the head of Taean Gun in the neighboring sea areas of the instant maritime shooting range during the damages claim period (i.e., the above [Attachment], and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs were engaged in fisheries with the permission of the head of Taean Gun during the damages claim period (i.e., the above [Attachment] or obtained fishery permission only after the date of the instant lawsuit). Thus, the above plaintiffs' claim of this case premised on the premise that they were fishermen subject to compensation for losses by obtaining the permission during the above damages claim period and engaging in fisheries with the permission during

B. The plaintiffs who should be deemed to have accepted the restriction of fishery right

[Attachment] In addition, in light of the following circumstances, the plaintiffs stated in the "cognition grounds" column of the list of dismissed persons in the "cognition grounds" were those who acquired fishery permits and fishing vessels after March 16, 2004, which were the base date of the claim for damages, as seen above, and the fishermen nearby the marine shooting range of this case continued to receive compensation due to the entry control of this case since the 1990s when the above claim for damages was long compared to the above claim period, and the group infringement lawsuit filed by many plaintiffs as in this case was prepared for a lawsuit over several years, and there may be a false occupant or false registrant, etc., if the above preparation of the lawsuit was known, at least before March 16, 2004, the base date of the claim for damages, which was the base date of the fishery permission or fishing vessel after the above acquisition of fishery permit or fishing vessel, and there is no reason to view that the above plaintiffs acquired the above plaintiffs' right to claim damages due to the above restriction of fishery permit and fishery right.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim against the defendant research institute of the plaintiff fishermen and the Republic of Korea is accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the plaintiff fishermen's claims against the defendant Thai-gun and the defendant Agency for Defense Development, and the Republic of Korea's remaining claims against the plaintiff fishermen are dismissed, respectively, as it is without merit. [Attachment] The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants stated in the list of dismissed persons are dismissed without justifiable reasons. It is so decided as per Disposition

[Attachment] List of Damage: omitted

[Attachment] List of Dismissal of Request: Omitted

[Attachment] Appraisal Report: omitted

[Attachment] The plaintiffs' fishing vessel registration and fishery permit status list: omitted

[Attachment] The allocation plan and operation status of a marine test shooting range: omitted

[Attachment] Related Acts and subordinate statutes: omitted

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)

(1) Subparagraph 5 of Article 4 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects provides that “when it is necessary for the public works under Article 4 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects” and Article 4 subparag. 1 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for