[임어권존재확인][집17(1)민,408]
Article 40 of the Fisheries Act means the meaning of the prescribed fishing practices
Article 40 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 190) provides that "the practice of fishery" means that the arrest or collection of fishery animals and plants continues for a long time from the fishery place without a license before the establishment of a joint fishery right to any fishing place, which leads to the extent that it will be generally accepted by the majority of people.
Article 40 of the Fisheries Act
Plaintiff 1 and 66 others (Attorney Park Jong-ap et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoam Fishing Village (Attorney Park Il-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Daegu High Court Decision 67Na172 delivered on December 11, 1968
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
We examine the grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs' attorney.
In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff (1) through (23) was established around 1962 with the authorization of the competent Minister in charge of the local fishery cooperative under the Fisheries Cooperative Act, and the plaintiff (24) was a member of the New Cancer fishing Village fraternity, and the plaintiff (24) through (67) was a member of the new Cancer fishing village fraternity. Since the above two fishing village fraternities were established, it was confirmed that since the above two fishing village fraternities were established, the fishery of this case was a joint fishing ground of the members of the previous members of the fishing village fraternity until now since the above two fishing village fraternities were established, it was confirmed that the fishery of this case was a business area of the defendant Seo Seosan Fishing Village, and the practice of fishery of this case under Article 40 of the Fisheries Act had been established for a long time before the establishment of a joint fishing right for any fishing ground as at the time of original trial, and it did not affect the plaintiffs' right to enter the fishery of this case by the agreement between the representatives of this village and it did not affect the plaintiffs' rights to participate in the fishery of this case under the agreement of this case.
We examine the second ground for appeal.
The court below determined that only the persons entered in the list as shown in No. 10-2 of the theory of lawsuit No. 10-2, which was admitted as evidence by the court below, was not a person engaged in fisheries in the fishing ground of this case under the previous jurisdiction of the plaintiff (24) through (67). The court below determined that the plaintiff (24) was not a person engaged in fisheries in the fishing ground of this case under the previous jurisdiction as to the gathering of seaweeds in the fishing ground of this case, and on the ground that there is no list of the plaintiffs on the list No. 10-2 of the above No. 10-2, the court below did not recognize that the above plaintiffs were a person engaged in fishing in accordance with the customary practices, but it is clear by the evidence adopted by the court below as one of the comprehensive evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court