[1] The standard point of time to determine whether a person has a right to the public waters under Articles 5 and 16 (1) of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act (=the time of disposition for reclamation license)

[2] In case of land expropriation under the former Industrial Sites and Development Act, the point of time to regard the public announcement of project approval under Article 46 (3) of the former Land Expropriation Act

[3] The case holding that even if the right to the pertinent public waters was held at the time of approval for designation of local industrial complex, where the right was extinguished after the expiration of the validity period and extension validity period prior to the date of public notice of the detailed items of land to be expropriated and used, the project executor may not claim compensation for losses

[4] Requirements for the application of the principle of protection of trust in administrative legal relations

[1] Articles 5 and 16 (1) of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Act No. 537 of Apr. 10, 1997) / [2] Article 46 (3) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002; Article 22 (2) of the former Industrial Sites and Development Act (amended by Act No. 4574 of Aug. 5, 1993); Article 22 (2) of the former Industrial Sites and Development Act (amended by Act No. 4748 of Mar. 24, 1994); Article 3 of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 4747 of Aug. 5, 1993); Article 5 of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Act No. 537 of Apr. 26, 196; Act No. 5294 of Apr. 29, 206>

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Du781 delivered on January 29, 1991 (Gong1991, 857) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Du7968 delivered on March 27, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 1021) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 98Du4061 delivered on May 8, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1644 delivered on March 9, 199 (Gong199Sang, 684) 9Du1052 delivered on May 25, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1301) / Supreme Court Decision 9Du10071 delivered on September 28, 201 (Gong1999Ha, 1301) / Supreme Court Decision 2001Du280781 delivered on September 28, 2001

Damage and disease, etc. and 11 others (Attorney Han Man-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jeonnam-do (Attorney Yang Dong-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2002Na9485 delivered on January 14, 2004

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Whether a person is a person who has a right to the public waters as a result of reclamation of the public waters pursuant to Articles 5 and 16(1) of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990; hereinafter referred to as the "former Public Waters Reclamation Act") shall be determined as at the time of disposal of reclamation license (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da6781 of Jan. 29, 1991; hereinafter referred to as the "Industrial Sites Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 4574 of Aug. 5, 1993; hereinafter referred to as the "former Public Waters Reclamation Act"), the former Industrial Sites and Development Act (amended by Act No. 4574 of Aug. 5, 1993; hereinafter referred to as the "former Public Waters Reclamation Act") and the former Public Waters Act (amended by Act No. 9600, Jun. 16, 196>

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's decision that the plaintiffs' fishery right in this case expired 20 years prior to the date of the defendant's public notice of approval for the development of a high-level industrial complex (including the public notice of the items of land, etc. to be expropriated or used) and its extended validity period expired. Thus, it is proper to determine that the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have any special sacrifice due to the development project of the high-level industrial complex in this case. It did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on each industrial site law before and after the amendment of the Public Waters Reclamation Act or the former Public Land Reclamation Act or the former Public Land Compensation Act (repealed by Act No. 6656, Feb. 4, 2002

2. The court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the consultation under the former Special Public Law has been concluded on June 10, 1992 and September 3, 1993 with the date of the standard of compensation for damage to fishery rights due to the development project of this case between the defendant and the plaintiffs, and that the price calculation base date was constituted on September 3, 1993. In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is proper and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence

3. The court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiffs' claim for compensation should be accepted in accordance with the principle of the protection of administrative trust, in general, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust in administrative legal relations, first, in order for administrative agencies to name the public opinion that is the subject of trust to individuals, second, in order to trust the subject of the opinion list of administrative agencies, there should be no cause attributable to the individuals; third, the individual should have trusted the opinion list; fourth, in order for administrative agencies to make dispositions contrary to the above opinion list against the above opinion list against the interests of the individuals who trusted the opinion list should be infringed; fourth, it is difficult to view that the defendant issued a public opinion that he would compensate the plaintiffs' fishery right; even if the defendant set the compensation policy to compensate the plaintiffs' fishery right and withdrawn it, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff et al. trusted the above compensation policy and did not have committed any act; and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was a violation of the principle of the protection of trust.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below's measures are just and acceptable, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of the protection of administrative trust.

4. In addition, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiffs should compensate for damages in accordance with Article 36 of the Industrial Sites Act prior to the amendment of Article 36 of the Industrial Sites Act, which provides for the duty to establish and implement relocation measures for the persons who lose their base of living against the project implementer, on the ground that the provisions of Article 36 of the Industrial Sites Act prior to the amendment, which provides for the duty to establish and implement relocation measures for the persons who lose their base of living against the project implementer, do not constitute grounds for citing the plaintiffs' claim for damages in this case, as to the allegation that the Hongsung Day, which is an employee of the defendant, caused damages to the plaintiffs' loss of their claim for compensation by altering the " June 10, 192, which is specified as the base date for compensation in the business instruction issued by the Korea Fisheries Research Institute," as long as the plaintiffs' claim for damages against the defendant is not recognized

In light of the records, the decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to illegal acts prior to the amendment.

5. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)