The case holding that a project implementer cannot acquire a right of free use for harbor facilities, in case where the harbor facilities are reverted to the State by obtaining an approval for reclamation under the Public Waters Reclamation Act, not the permission for implementation of the harbor facilities under the Harbor Act, but the approval conditions;

The case holding that a project implementer cannot acquire a right of free use for harbor facilities, in case where the harbor facilities are reverted to the State by obtaining an approval for reclamation under the Public Waters Reclamation Act, not the permission for the implementation of the harbor facilities under the Harbor Act, but the approval conditions for reclamation.

Articles 9, 11(1)5, and 17 of the former Harbor Act (amended by Act No. 4925 of Jan. 5, 1995); Articles 17(2)1, and 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act; Articles 4(1), 14(1), and 29 of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Act No. 5337 of Apr. 10, 1997); Articles 4, 20, and 34 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1447 of Dec. 23, 1994)

Korea Electric Power Corporation's lawsuit taking over the lawsuit (Law Firm Sejong Chang, Attorneys Lee Il-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Masan Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

Busan High Court Decision 99Nu3874 delivered on June 29, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking into account the selected evidence, the lower court found that the Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) was located in 1993 on Nov. 17, 199, 200, 30 square meters of the above 15 square meters and 44 square meters of the above 7th 7th 7th 4th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 96th 7th 96th 96th 7th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 922222 of the above ground for reclamation.

The court below determined that since the plaintiff, a non-management authority, obtained approval from the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries for reclamation of public waters pursuant to the Harbor Act, rather than the permission from the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries under the Harbor Act, and performed construction work, and belongs to the State according to the conditions added by the Gyeongnam-do Governor at the time of approval and approval, the plaintiff cannot obtain the right to free use of the harbor facilities of this case from the port facilities of this case, and as long as the ownership of the port facilities of this case belongs to the State of the port facilities of this case, the court below held that even if the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries conditional consent at the time of approval of reclamation of public waters or adding conditions to the Gyeongnam-do Governor at the time of such approval, such consent cannot be deemed the same as the case of obtaining the permission under the Harbor Act due to such conditional consent or such consent cannot be deemed as the premise of free use of the harbor facilities of this case, such circumstances cannot be the grounds for the right to use the harbor facilities of this case.

Furthermore, the court below held that, while the Harbor Act does not provide for legal fiction of permission for reclamation under the Harbor Act as a reclamation license, etc., in order to compensate the project cost, the Harbor Act allows the project implementer to use the harbor facilities to the extent that the project cost is equivalent to the project cost, and there are completely different methods and procedures for preserving the project cost depending on the project cost’s progress. In particular, the court below held that, in the case of approval for reclamation of public waters, the reclamation project implementer is not required to acquire the ownership of reclaimed land equivalent to the project cost required for the reclamation, such as the reclamation license, but it is difficult for the Plaintiff to acquire the part other than the reclaimed land necessary for the public or public use pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes from the perspective of preserving the project cost so that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to use the harbor facilities of this case from the State to the extent that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to use the reclaimed land more than 30 meters of the reclaimed land’s construction cost to the extent that it would be difficult for the Plaintiff to use the reclaimed land to the public or the public use site.

This fact-finding by the court below is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

In addition, the judgment of the court below is just in its factual basis that the plaintiff, who did not perform the construction of harbor facilities by permission under Article 9 of the Harbor Act, did not have the right to apply for the free use of harbor facilities under Article 17 of the same Act and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the permission to implement the harbor works under Article 9 (2) of the Harbor Act, the limit of the father and the illegality, etc., or in violation of the purport

2. Compared with the evidence in the records, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant expressed a public opinion to the effect that he can use the port facilities of this case free of charge. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just in the application of the principle of protection of trust, which is the requirement of such public opinion, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the principle of protection of trust.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)