If a person who has obtained a license for a reclamation project of public waters causes damage to a person who has the right to receive compensation by implementing the reclamation project of public waters without compensation under Article 16(1) of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Act No. 4252, Aug. 1, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply), it should constitute a tort; however, in order to establish a tort, the reclamation project of public waters is an illegal act by intention or negligence.

According to the evidence admitted by the court below, the plaintiff agreed in advance or after the commencement of the reclamation work of this case, and the defendant requested the relevant research institute which brought considerable expenses to provide investigation services on fishery damage within the reasonable and realistic scope, instead of taking any compensation procedure as a project operator, and paid compensation in accordance with the result. The plaintiff made an indirect lump-sum compensation in accordance with the plaintiff's investigation service as to the fishery right of this case, and agreed on the plaintiff's compensation within the compensation plan. Thus, the plaintiff's reclamation project of this case cannot be deemed to constitute a tort in violation of the provisions of Articles 16 and 17 of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act.

The judgment of the court below that the defendant cannot be held liable for tort is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of tort.

On the other hand, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant suffered damages due to the defects in the installation or preservation of the tide embankment of this case, judged that there is no evidence to find that the tide embankment constructed by the defendant did not have safety ordinarily required for its use. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defects in the installation

2. Determination on claims for compensation for losses

The right to claim for compensation for losses or the right to claim for compensation for losses under the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252, Aug. 1, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) by analogy to the Acts and subordinate statutes related to compensation for losses shall be exercised in a civil procedure against the project implementer. However, the right to claim for compensation for losses acquired by a person holding a right under Article 16(1) of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act pursuant to the same provisions shall not be exercised in a civil procedure, and where an agreement is not reached or cannot be reached pursuant to Article 16(2) and (3) of the same Act, it shall be exercised through an administrative litigation against the Land Tribunal through the

According to the evidence admitted by the court below, since the plaintiff's holder of licensed fishery is a person who holds the right under Article 16 (1) of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act, the plaintiff's claim for compensation for losses arising from the reclamation of public waters in this case is directly based on the above provision of the above Act. Thus, in accordance with the above legal principles, the plaintiff should claim the right through the finance under Article 16 (2) and (3) of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act and the method of administrative litigation against the defendant, and the claim for compensation for losses cannot be exercised by the method of civil litigation against the defendant (refer to Supreme Court Decision 9Da56468 delivered on June 29, 201).

On the other hand, the Plaintiff does not constitute a person who acquired a claim for compensation under Article 75 of the former Fisheries Act, and as long as the claim for compensation is acknowledged directly based on the former Public Waters Reclamation Act, there is no room to acknowledge a claim for compensation under the analogical application of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes

Ultimately, the decision of the court below that dismissed the claim for the compensation of losses on the ground that the plaintiff cannot claim the compensation for losses under the Fisheries Act against the defendant is correct and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged in

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different factual relations and cannot be invoked in the instant case.

3. Determination as to the claim under the contract

The court below held that there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant agreed to compensate to the plaintiff, and in light of the records, the decision of the court below is justified and there is no error of law by misconceptioning the

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)