B. Nature of fishing right under the Fisheries Act

(b) Fishing rights are private rights arising out of practices or contracts, not public rights.

Of the costs of the appeal, those arising from the appeal by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) are assessed against the plaintiff, and those arising from the appeal by the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) are assessed against the defendant.

At the date of pleading of the court below and April 26, 1967, 10.00, both the original defendant's agent and the principal defendant's agent are members of the previous Adduk Fisheries Association, but it is clear that the original judgment was identical to the original judgment (Records 458) because it stated that there was no dispute as to the fact that a member of the Eddong Fisheries Cooperatives was a member of the previous Aduk Fisheries Association due to the enforcement of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, and there is no error of law that there was no dispute between the parties in the original judgment and the original judgment.

The judgment on the second ground for appeal

However, in light of the established facts, even though the fishery village fraternity was a fishing village fraternity organized under the Fisheries Cooperatives Act after the enforcement of the Act, the fishery village fraternity was divided into two different ways after the enforcement of the Act, and the fishery village fraternity was a member of the fishery village fraternity, and as the member of the fishery village fraternity was a member of the fishery village fraternity, it is obvious that the fishery village fraternity had the right to enter the fishery district by the practice of the defendant fishing village fraternity, on the premise that the fishery village fraternity and the defendant fishing village fraternity were an identical organization, and it is sufficient to recognize the above facts based on the evidence cited in the original judgment.

The judgment on the third ground for appeal is made.

In accordance with Article 40 of the Fisheries Act, the term "fishing practice holder" refers only to a natural person, such as a theory of lawsuit, and no organization does not constitute a legal basis. In addition, the defendant fishing village fraternity did not enter into a contract for the exercise of fishery right with the frier fishery cooperative which is the first-class joint fishing right holder, and the plaintiff fishing village fraternity did not enter into the above contract pursuant to the provisions enacted pursuant to Article 51 of the Fisheries Act, and even if the plaintiff fishing village fraternity entered into the above contract, it is not possible for the defendant fishing village fraternity to refuse the exercise of fishery right due to the practice pursuant to Article 40 of the same Act, and the defendant fishing village fraternity did not enter into the previous 2,3 years, and there was no fact that the defendant fishing village fraternity entered into the above contract for the past 2,3 years, and the right due to the above practice of the defendant fishing village fraternity cannot be extinguished.

2. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

The arguments are as follows: (a) the Gaddong Fisheries Cooperatives (fisheries Cooperatives prior to the enforcement of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act) was deemed to be the current Doddong Fisheries Cooperatives pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda to the Fisheries Cooperatives Act; (b) the 1st co-fishery rights of this case were enjoyed by the said Doddong Fisheries Cooperatives; (c) Article 8 of the Fisheries Act was amended as of April 11, 1963; (d) the Doddong Fisheries Cooperatives, as it was enforced from July 1, 1963; (b) obtained a new license ( subparagraph 3) with the Doddong Fisheries Cooperatives as the 1st co-fishery rights under subparagraph 3 of Article 1 of the Fisheries Act; and (c) between the Gaddong Fisheries Cooperatives and the original Defendant Fishing Village Association, the exclusive fishery rights of this case were concluded only with the Defendant Association; and (d) even if the Doddong Fisheries Cooperatives established after the enforcement of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, it did not affect the conclusion that the agreement had no effect on the validity of the agreement.

The ground of appeal No. 2 is examined.

Fishing right is a private right arising from practice or contract, it is not a public right, and it is not a case of administrative litigation on the existence or confirmation of fishing right on the ground of the provisions of Article 69 of the Fisheries Act.

Therefore, the appeal by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) is without merit. Therefore, the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and they are so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu