[공유수면매립면허취소처분취소][집13(2)행,019]
The so-called “association or land owner” under Article 57(1) of the Public Waters Reclamation Act and Article 6(4) of the Land Improvement Project Act;
The association or land owner of Article 57 (1) of the Land Improvement Project Act has ‘the person who has the right of Article 5 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act'.
Article 6 subparagraph 4 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, Article 7 (1) of the Land Improvement Project Act
Plaintiff
Governor of Jeollabuk-do
Gwangju High Court Decision 64Gu31 delivered on June 22, 1965
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant's attorney's ground of appeal is examined.
However, in the first oral argument of the court below, the defendant stated that the defendant was the plaintiff on June 16, 1964 in the notice of the cancellation of the reclamation license of this case. Thus, there is no reason to argue that the court below's failure to ex officio again on this point is erroneous.
The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.
The so-called "person who has the right to consent" means a person listed in subparagraphs 1 through 4 of Article 6 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, and a cooperative or a landowner referred to in Article 57 (1) of the Land Improvement Projects Act shall not be deemed as a person who has the right to the public waters as referred to above. According to the original judgment established on September 1943, the public waters in this case was incorporated into the Hanwon-won Land Improvement Cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as the "Hawon-won"), which received sufficient repair benefits from the said association, and thus, the public waters in this case were not in fact unnecessary and neglected without using it as it is, and thus, the remaining land improvement cooperative or the land owner in the said association area shall not be deemed as a person who has the right to the public waters in this case, and it shall not be deemed as a person who has the right to the above public waters improvement cooperative or a person who has the right to the public waters improvement cooperative under the premise that the above land owner did not have the right to the public waters improvement cooperative's own opinion on the ground that the above land improvement cooperative or another land owner did not have the right.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman