Whether the fishery right acquired by obtaining a license for fish farming in private waters pursuant to Article 7(3) of the former Inland Fisheries Development Promotion Act is subject to the same Act (affirmative), and whether the criteria for compensation for fishery loss under Article 23(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and Compensation for Loss can be applied to the said fish farming (affirmative)

If a person acquires a fishery right under Article 11 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inland Fisheries Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 5893, Feb. 8, 199) with a license for fish farming business under Article 7(3) of the same Act, it is reasonable to deem that the above Act is applicable to a licensed fishery business even if a private water surface falls under the “special provision” under Article 3-2(1) of the same Act. This provision is also applicable to a person who obtains a license for fish farming in a private water surface under Article 7(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Inland Fisheries Development Promotion Act by the expiry date of the term of validity of the fishery business under Article 2(2) of the same Act, and thus, if the above permit for fish farming becomes more impossible due to the incorporation of the above permit for fish farming into a road business zone, Article 2(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Inland Water Fisheries Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 5813, Feb. 8, 199; Presidential Decree No. 201365, Jul. 137, 20197, 197). 207

Articles 3-2(1) (see current Article 3(1)), 7(3) (see current Article 11(2)), 11 (see current Article 7 of the Inland Water Fisheries Act), and 16 (see current Article 22 of the Inland Water Fisheries Act), Article 2(2) of the Addenda to the Inland Water Fisheries Development Promotion Act (Amended by Act No. 5893, Feb. 8, 1999); Article 23(1) (see current Article 44(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2504, Dec. 31, 2002); Article 23(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works Projects and the Compensation therefor (see current Article 34(2)); Article 38(1) of the former Fisheries Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25137, Apr. 27, 2007)

Plaintiff (Attorney Jeong-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Attorney Kim Shin-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2003Nu1873 delivered on May 27, 2004

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

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The argument in the grounds of appeal that the fishery license of this case is valid because it is obvious that the defendants' assertion that the public market without the delegation of authority is invalid only when it comes to the final appeal, and it is not a legitimate ground of appeal against the judgment of the court below (in addition, the fishery license of the Do governor under Article 7 of the Act constitutes a local government's business, and the head of the local government can delegate part of his authority to the subordinate administrative agency under Article 95 of the Local Autonomy Act or under Article 95 of the Local Autonomy Act with the business of the local government. Accordingly, according to the records, the Cheongnam-do Governor delegated the fishery license of this case to the plaintiff under Article 7 of the Ordinance on the Delegation of the Si/Gun Ordinance on the Delegation of the Do Affairs (No. 2028) and the plaintiff Do governor issued the fishery license of this case to the Do governor under Article 7 of the Act.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The court below established facts based on its adopted evidence. The plaintiff acquired a fishery right under Article 11 of the Act by obtaining a license for fish farming business under Article 7 (3) of the Act with respect to the instant fish farm, and it is reasonable to view that the above Act is applicable to a person who obtained a license for fish farming business in private waters under Article 7 (3) of the former Act as it constitutes a "special provision" under Article 3-2 (1) of the Act, even if it is a private water surface. The court below held that Article 16 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 6255 of Jan. 28, 200) should be subject to the previous provision as to a person who obtained a license for fish farming business in private waters under Article 7 (3) of the former Act until the expiry of the term of validity of the fishery business under Article 2 (2) of the Addenda of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inland Water Fisheries Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20137, Apr. 1, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20137, etc.).

In light of the relevant laws and regulations, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 7 of the Act and compensation for fisheries, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The Supreme Court's precedents are relevant to whether the Defendants constitute a reported fishery business under the Act, and it is inappropriate to invoke the case in this case, depending on different issues.

3. Conclusion

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 Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)