[2] The scope of a person permitted to compensate for or compensate for losses caused by the implementation of a public project on public waters and the criteria for determining the scope of the reported person

[2] Where the executor of a public project obligated to compensate for losses does not compensate for losses and actually infringes on a third party by executing a public project, it constitutes a tort. However, if it is deemed that the fishery business operator of public waters has suffered damages due to the implementation of the public project, the fishery business operator should be engaged in the fishery business as a legitimate licensed fishery business operator or a licensed fishery business operator at the time of the implementation of the public project, or a licensed fishery business operator at the time of the implementation of the public project. If the fishery business operator obtained the fishery business permission or reported the fishery business after the implementation of the public project or the public notice of the license for the implementation of the public project, etc., but the restriction on the permission or reported business has already been objectively determined and conclusive, unlike the fishery business operator who completed the fishery business or the reported business prior to the implementation of the public project, it cannot be said that the fishery business operator suffered special losses subject to the compensation even if there is a decrease in the benefits gained by the fishery business operator prior to the implementation of the public project. In such case, the fishery business permission or report should be based on the pertinent fishery permit or report.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above 19-year fishing permit and the above 1-year fishing permit and the above 1-year fishing permit and the above 2-year fishing permit and the above 1-year fishing permit and the above 9-year fishing permit and the above 1-year fishing permit and the above 9-year fishing permit and the above 1-year fishing permit and the above 9-year fishing permit and the above 1-year fishing permit and the above 9-year fishing permit and the above 1-year fishing permit and the above 1-year fishing vessel's fishing permit and the above 9-year fishing permit and the above 1-year fishing permit and the above 1-year fishing permit and the above 1-year fishing permit and the above 1-year fishing vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel's vessel.

On the other hand, the court below rejected all of the aforementioned designated parties and those who started fishery with a new fishery permit from December 31, 1983 prior to the completion of the installation of a private chart and the commencement of the fishery business from December 31, 1983, on the ground that the defendant was liable for damages to the fishermen who suffered from the area affected by the fishery of this case due to the development of the fishing operation of this case from 112 No. 118 of the list of designated parties of the court below's decision that they had been liable for damages to them. Thus, the court below rejected all of the aforementioned designated parties and those who had been engaged in the permitted fishery or reported fishery in the area affected by the fishery of this case since the construction of a private chart was merely the existence of a sea route for the installation of a new fishery schedule and the acquisition of rights to the fishery business under such status, and there was no evidence that the aforementioned designated parties and those who had been suffering from new infringement or any damages due to such infringement before the construction of a private schedule.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. As to the subject of the liability for damages

In light of Article 2 (2) 2, 5, and 8 of the former Industrial Base Development Promotion Act, the term "airway dredging work" and "private schedule installation work of this case executed by the defendant is incidental to the construction of the power plant and the fixed port construction work of this case, and constitutes an industrial base development project as prescribed by the above Act. Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the defendant actively performed ocean-going dredging construction as it aims to supply raw materials and fuel for the construction and operation of the power plant of this case, it can be deemed that the defendant's installation of a private schedule can be deemed that large vessels entering and departing from a fixed port enter and departing from the fixed port are leading to the navigation of the fixed port area. Thus, with respect to special damages suffered by a third party,

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the subject of liability for compensation of fishery damage of this case as otherwise alleged in the defendant's ground of appeal. The defendant's ground of appeal on this part is without merit

B. As to the occurrence of liability for damages

If the executor of a public project obligated to compensate for losses and actually infringes on any third party by executing a public project without compensating for losses, it constitutes a tort. However, if the operator of a public project is able to claim compensation for losses or damages due to the implementation of the public project, he/she must be a lawful licensed fishery operator or a licensed fishery operator at the time of the implementation of the project, or a reported fishery business operator. If the fishery business has been granted or reported after the implementation of the public project after the public announcement of the above project license, etc., or the restriction on the permission or reported fishery business was already determined objectively and objectively, this is premised on the restriction. Unlike the person who previously completed the fishery business or reported the above public project, the fishery business cannot be deemed to have suffered special losses that the fishery owner may obtain as compensation for losses or damages due to the implementation of the public project (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da15032, Apr. 14, 1998; Supreme Court Decision 2000Da315989, Mar. 16, 1998

Even according to the fact-finding of the court below, the damage to the fishery by the designated parties who accepted the claim was incurred after 191, and the fishery permission by the designated parties at that time was made after May 21, 1985, which was far more than December 31, 1983 after the completion of both the Defendant’s order to dredge the sea route of this case and the installation of a private table. Thus, the damage to the fishery by such fishery permission cannot be deemed as a special damage subject to compensation or compensation due to the Defendant’s implementation of the above business.

Nevertheless, the court below's finding the defendant's liability for damages against the designated parties' permitted fishery is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to damages caused by permitted fishery, etc. which are subject to compensation for damages related to the implementation of public projects, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the defendant's ground of

On the other hand, in light of the above legal principles and records, it is reasonable that the court below rejected all the claims on the ground that there is no evidence that the designated parties who rejected the claims of this case and 112 were engaged in permitted fishery or reported fishery in the area damaged by the operation of this case since before December 31, 1983, and there is no evidence that the court below had been engaged in permitted fishery or reported fishery in the area damaged by the operation of this case. There is no error of misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence as otherwise

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant, the part against the defendant among the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The plaintiffs' appeals are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)