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

(a)in the case of a license or report with respect to fisheries, the validity of the license or report naturally becomes extinct upon the expiration of that term, and even if the license or report is obtained again or filed, the validity or nature of the previous license or report cannot be deemed to continue due to the renewal of the license or report term, and becomes effective as

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Du5728, Jul. 28, 2011; 201Da57692, May 29, 2014). Such legal doctrine applies likewise 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 for another fishing ground.

B. The lower court determined that it was difficult to view the new fishery right as the same as the previous fishery right on the following grounds.

A fishery right is an exclusive right.

Article 16 of the Fisheries Act provides that "The fishery right shall be acquired by registering in the register of fishery rights (Paragraph 1), and the fishery right shall be a real right, and the provisions of the Civil Act concerning the land shall apply mutatis mutandis (Paragraph 2)."

② According to the Fisheries Act and subordinate statutes, a fishery right may exceptionally change the method of farming, the facility quantity of a fish farm, the type of a fish farm, and the timing of fishery with the approval of the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu. It is difficult to deem that the former fishery right and the fishing ground are different from

(3) Even if based on the detailed guidelines for the development plan for the use of fishing grounds prepared by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, alternative development seems to be a new type of development of fishing grounds.

C. Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records in light of the legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the identity and continuity of fishery rights.