[2] The method of interpreting the intent of the party expressed in the contract document

[3] The case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of the new fishery right, although Gap's new fishery right and its new fishery right are not identical to Gap's previous fishery right and its new fishery right are not acknowledged under the previous Fisheries Act, in a case where Gap, who had a fishery right near the above power plant and operated a fishing ground near the above power plant, renounced the previous fishery right due to substitution development in accordance with the fishery use development plan under the Fisheries Act according to the local government's administrative guidance, and registered it in the fishery right ledger

[2] Interpretation of a juristic act is clearly confirming the objective meaning that the party gave to the act of expressing the intent. In a case where the interpretation of the party’s intent expressed in a contract document becomes an issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, motive and background of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement

[3] Where Gap, who had had a fishing right in the vicinity of the above electric power plant, before the implementation plan for electric power resource development business for the construction of nuclear power plants, renounced the old fishing right for the reason of alternative development in accordance with the fishery resource development plan under the Fisheries Act according to the local government's administrative guidance, and acquired a new fishing right and registered it in the fishing right register; thereafter, Eul, a project executor of the above electric power resource development business, through regional headquarters under its control, shall apply the date of public announcement of the approval for the implementation plan for the electric power plant, and "the date of compensation for predicted damage" shall be the date of public notification of the approval for the implementation plan for the electric power plant, and "the fishery subject to investigation shall be the registered license, permitted and reported fishery resource development business as of the standard date of compensation for damages," and the company Gap excluded the aforementioned compensation for the fishery right subject to compensation for damages because it was conducted after the aforementioned public notification date, which included Gap's new fishing right's new fishing right's new development project's new development project, but did not include the aforementioned new development project's agreement.

1. As to whether the Plaintiff’s new fishery right is identical to the previous fishery right (ground of appeal No. 1)

A. The term of validity of a license or report with respect to fisheries naturally becomes extinct upon the lapse of the term of validity of the license or report. 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 term of the license or report, and the validity of the previous license or report becomes effective as a new license or report (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Du5728, Jul. 28, 201; 201Da57692, May 29, 2014). This legal doctrine equally applies to cases where a previous fishery right is waived due to the alternative development in accordance with the fishing ground development plan under the Fisheries Act and a new fishery right is registered with respect

B. The lower court determined that it is difficult to view the new fishery right as identical to the previous fishery right on the following grounds. ① The fishery right is an exclusive right. Article 16 of the Fisheries Act provides that “The fishery right shall be acquired by registering in the original fishery right register (Paragraph 1), the fishery right shall be a real right, and the provisions on land under the Civil Act concerning land shall apply mutatis mutandis (Paragraph 2).” ② According to the Acts and subordinate statutes on fisheries, the fishery right may exceptionally change the method of cultivation, the quantity of fishing ground facilities, the type of fish farming business, and the timing of fishery with the authorization of the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, etc., and it is difficult to regard the location of the previous fishery right and fishing ground as the alteration of the new fishery right.

C. Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the identity and continuity of fishery rights, or by adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Whether the Plaintiff’s new fishery right is included in the subject of compensation under the interpretation of the instant agreement (ground of appeal No. 2)

A. Interpretation of a juristic act is clearly confirming the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of indicating the juristic act. In a case where the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in a contract document becomes an issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, motive and background of the agreement, the objective to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da6065, May 27, 2005; 2014Da25809, Jun. 22, 2017).

B. The reasoning of the lower judgment reveals the following circumstances.

1) 원고는 2008. 7. 14. 울진군수로부터 구 어업권(울진협동양식어업 면허 제○○호, 양식물의 종류: 우렁쉥이)의 유효기간을 2018. 7. 22.까지로 연장하는 허가를 받았다.

2) On April 3, 2009, the Minister of Knowledge Economy publicly announced an implementation plan for electric power resource development business (hereinafter “electric power resource development business of this case”) with the content of constructing new electric power plant 1 and 2.

3) Meanwhile, the Special Guidelines for the Development Plan for the Use of Fishing Villages in 2009 and the Detailed Guidelines for the Modification (Additional Guidelines) of the Development Plan for the Use of Fishing Ground in 2009 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Detailed Guidelines for the 2009”) prepared by the Gyeongbuk Governor to be applied from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 201 pursuant to the Fisheries Act and subordinate statutes providing that “where developing a substitute fishing ground, it shall be developed within the scope of the existing fishing ground area and shall be licensed within the remainder of the license term of the existing fishing ground.” “The fisheries included in the formulation of the change in the plan for the use and development of fishing ground shall be limited to a hole, and fisheries damage may be minimized by moving the fishery from the waters where the productivity of the fishery disaster has been reduced due to the prolonged construction, red tanks, and abnormal birds, etc. into an open sea fishing ground.”

4) On May 31, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a report on the waiver of the former fishery right on the grounds of renunciation of “alternative development” with the head of Ulsan-do head on May 31, 2010, and applied for a new fishery license at the same time. The head of Ulsan-do head accepted the previous report on waiver of the fishery right on June 1, 2010, and on June 7, 2010, the same type of the former fishery right, fishery method, fishing ground area, and type of cultivated products are the same. The term of validity of the license is from June 7, 2010 to July 22, 2018. The location of the fishing ground is limited to approximately 1,200 square meters away from the previous fishing ground, and registered in the ledger of the new fishery right (Uljin △△△△△) in the original register of fishery rights.

5) On November 23, 201, the Ulsan Nuclear Headquarters under the Defendant’s control of the Defendant (hereinafter “the Ulsan Nuclear Headquarters”) concluded an agreement on the compensation for damage to the fishermen of the Ulsan-gu fishermen, comprised of residents engaged in fisheries in the vicinity of the New Ulsan-gu nuclear power plant 1 and 2, on November 23, 201 (hereinafter “the Committee on Compensation for Damage”) and on the predicted fishery damage arising from thermal effluents emitted from the operation of the new Ulsan-gu nuclear power plant 1 and 2, and on the investigation and compensation for fishery damage arising from thermal effluents emitted from the existing thermal power plant 1 and 2, and on the investigation of and compensation for fishery damage arising from thermal effluents emitted from the output of the thermal power plant

6) As to the standard date of compensation, Article 2(1) of the instant agreement provides that “The predicted damage compensation date shall apply to the predicted damage compensation date on April 3, 2009,” and Article 3 provides that “the license, permission, and reported fishery as of the base date of compensation shall be the license, permission, and reported fishery registered with the Ulsan-gun as of the base date of compensation,” and Article 7(3) provides that “the Ulsan-gu headquarters and the Damage Countermeasures Council shall accept without objection to the final report of the survey service and the results of the appraisal which have been completed of the inspection.” In addition, Article 9(1) and (3) provides that “the fishery right, the result of the inspection of which has been verified as a result of the inspection, shall be subject to the cancellation or restriction of fishery (permanently known compensation) according to the profitability judgment of the appraisal agency”, “the damage compensation date shall be deemed to be the date of the conclusion of the new operation report or the results of the appraisal, and Article 2(1) and (2) provides that “the consent of the new operation report shall be deemed to be made.”

7) According to the instant agreement, the Korea Institute of Marine Science and Technology conducted a forecast and survey on damage and completed an investigation on September 2014. As a result, the entire area of the former fishery area and new fishery area are included in the damaged area of thermal effluents emitted from the 1 and 2 nuclear power plant in the new nuclear power plant (hereinafter “instant power plant”) and the damage rate of the new fishery right due to thermal effluents was 0.250.

8) On May 2015, the Defendant held an explanatory meeting on the compensation plan against the victimized fishermen, and completed compensation for the fishery right. However, as to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff excluded the new fishery right from the subject of compensation on the ground that “the former fishery right was transferred to a new fishery right to improve the fishing ground environment and increase fishery productivity in accordance with the fishing ground development plan promoted by the local government. However, since the registration of the original fishery right register was made after the date of the instant public notice, it appears that the restriction was made due to the implementation of public works such as the construction and operation of the instant power plant, namely, the fishery damage caused by the thermal effluent discharge of the instant power plant in the future.”

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s new fishery right is included in the subject of compensation under the instant agreement. The reasons are as follows.

1) Before the agreement of this case was concluded, the Plaintiff already renounced the previous fishery right on the ground of alternative development, and acquired the new fishery right. Therefore, the Defendant was able to clearly state that the alternative developed fishery right is excluded from the eligibility for compensation, but did not do so. On the other hand, if it is interpreted that the alternative developed fishery right, including the Plaintiff’s new fishery right, is not included in the eligibility for compensation under the agreement of this case, the Plaintiff did not have any reason to cooperate in the forecast and investigation of damage pursuant to the agreement of this case, and the damaged countermeasure

2) The Plaintiff renounced the old fishery right and acquired the new fishery right to develop the alternative fishing ground in accordance with the detailed guidelines in 2009 and the official guidance of the Ulsan-gun to improve the productivity of aquaculture in a hole and prevent fishery disasters. Accordingly, the new fishery right constitutes the right to substitute the old fishery right to the Plaintiff.

3) On May 6, 2010, when the Plaintiff’s waiver of the former fishery right and the acquisition of a new fishery right, there was no reason to refuse the Plaintiff’s administrative guidance on the fishery damage caused by thermal effluents, which may be discharged at the instant power plant, on the ground that it was impossible to predict at any time and in any way, to compensate for damage. According to the Defendant’s assertion that the new fishery right is not subject to compensation, the Plaintiff is obliged to refuse administrative guidance and continue to engage in the fishery business in the former fishery area. However, this is unreasonable since it was forced the Plaintiff to engage in the fishery business in a fishing area with low productivity in preparation for future uncertain compensation for damage, which

4) The fishermen holding the damaged countermeasure level and the fishery right subject to predicted research on damage, and the Defendant appears to have reached the instant agreement in order to resolve disputes arising from thermal effluents to be discharged at the instant power plant in a final manner. Furthermore, the Defendant was able to obtain the consent of the fishery right holders necessary to implement the electric power resource development business of this case before paying damages through the instant agreement. Therefore, the Defendant was in a realistic need to compensate the fishermen, including the Plaintiff, for the efficient execution of the electric power resource development business of this case even if the compensation requirements prescribed by the relevant

5) The Plaintiff’s new fishery right was included in the predicted investigation subject, and the result of the investigation conducted by the Korea Institute of Marine Science and Technology (Korea Institute of Marine Science and Technology) was included in the damaged area of thermal effluents emitted

6) Although there may be concerns over excessive compensation when compensating for damages to a new fishery right, the new fishery right shall not be interpreted to exclude the new fishery right from the subject of compensation on the grounds of concerns over excessive payment of compensation, since it may be considered in the process of calculating the damage rate to the new fishery right or calculating the amount of compensation.

D. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s new fishery right does not constitute a compensation subject to the instant agreement solely on the ground that the new fishery right registered in the fishery right registry after the date of the instant public notice was acquired under the conditions that the restriction on the execution of the electric power resource development business was already established, and thus, cannot be deemed to have suffered special damages, and that the new fishery right cannot be deemed to be the same as the previous fishery right registered as of the date of compensation criteria. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of juristic act, thereby adversely affecting

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)