logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1967. 9. 19. 선고 67누39 판결
[공유수면준공인가처분취소][집15(3)행,005]
Main Issues

(a) Trial failure to disclose a reversion relationship with the right to reclaim public waters;

(b) Effects of the resolution on the change of the association members without the authorization of the licensing authority on the collective ownership of public waters; and

Summary of Judgment

Where the reclamation right is jointly owned by a member of the fraternity, the withdrawal or new entry under the rules of the fraternity shall not be effective to change the reclamation right holder unless the license authority obtains the approval of the reclamation.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 20 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, Article 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Reclamation Act

Plaintiff, Appellant

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant-Appellee

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and one other

The court below

Seoul High Court Decision 65Gu239 delivered on February 16, 1967

Text

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Reasons

According to the court below's decision that the plaintiff's original judgment was based on the former part of the plaintiff's ground of appeal. The court below's decision that the plaintiff's original judgment was based on the former part of the plaintiff's 1's original judgment that was based on the above 4th court's original judgment was based on the above 6th court's reasoning that the plaintiff's original decision was not based on the above 10th court's original decision that it was based on the above 4th court's original decision that the plaintiff's original decision was based on the above 6th court's original decision that it was based on the above 4th court's original decision that the plaintiff's original decision was based on the above 6th court's original decision that it was based on the above 4th court's original decision that the plaintiff's original decision was based on the above 10th court's original decision that the plaintiff's original decision was not based on the above 6th court's original decision that the above 6th court's original decision did not belong to the above 8th court's original decision.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong and Kimchi-galle

arrow