Fisheries Cooperatives (Attorney Kim Jong-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jeonnam-do Governor (Attorney Lee Hong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

November 5, 1969

The Defendant confirmed that the Defendant’s license for fishery business was invalid for the non-party 1,574,00 square meters on the surface of the water circulated by the line that connects the point to the north Ga, Na, Da, Ma, Ma, Ba, and Ma, the line that connects the point to the north Ga, Do, Do, Do, Do, in the order of the head of the non-Gun, Do, Do, Do, Do, Do, in the separate sheet No. 355, Aug. 17,

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The defendant as this safety defense that the plaintiff union did not have any fact on the ground of this case and did not have a neglected fishery license. The plaintiff union should have no interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the administrative disposition against the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff union's main claim should be dismissed as it is unlawful and inappropriate. Thus, the defendant's 1,574,00 square meters of the surface indicated in the order of August 17, 1964 with respect to the non-party 1,55 for the non-party 1,55 for the non-party 5 for the non-party 1,50 for the non-party 1,50 for the non-party 1,50 for the non-party 1,50 for the non-party 1,50 for the non-party 1,50 for the non-party 4,500 for the non-party 5,000 fishery business for the non-party 5,000 square meters of the non-party 5,000 for the non-party 1,5,05,0000.

Therefore, in full view of the facts stated in Gap evidence No. 1 as well as the appraisal statement and the result of verification on the merits, the defendant's disposal of the remaining fishery business license No. 355 prior to the 1964 is limited to 14,450 square meters in the area south-Gun, which is the business territory of the fishery cooperative in the north-west-Gun, the 1964, and there is no other evidence to determine the above recognition. According to Article 16 (2) of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, the fishery business cooperative's business territory is within the area of Si/Gun except where the head of the fishery business office obtains the approval. Thus, the defendant cannot dispose of the fishery business within the area outside the business territory of the Y-Gun, which is the business territory of the plaintiff's association.

Therefore, in the case of this case where there is no assertion that the defendant obtained the approval from the Administrator of the Fisheries Administration before the year 1964, the permit for fish farming business under the Article 355 for the defendant's previous fishery cooperative was made to the North Korean fishery cooperative, and there is no proof that the contents of the administrative act are legally impossible, and therefore, the administrative act should be void as it contains serious defects.

The defendant's assertion that the administrative action is valid since the defendant issued a license for the main fishery cooperative in accordance with the practice that the North Korean fishing cooperative has neglected from 1930 to 1930 in the fishing ground. However, it cannot be accepted as an independent opinion.

In addition, the defendant's survey on October 4 and October 8, 1968 between the plaintiff fishery cooperatives and the North Korean fishery cooperatives at the end of mutual consultation and confirmed the fishery area as a license area for the North Korean fishery cooperatives. Thus, although there is no dispute over the public nature, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant agreed on the determination of the area other than the fact that the defendant attempted to adjust the area between the plaintiff fishery cooperatives and the North Korean fishery cooperatives, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant agreed on the determination of the area other than the fact that the defendant attempted to adjust the area of the fishery area surrounding the disposition of this case, and that the administrative act of this case cannot be cured in any case and it cannot be valid due to ratification, so the above assertion cannot be accepted.

If so, the Defendant’s disposition of license to Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 2 was invalid before 1964, and thus, the Plaintiff’s main lawsuit seeking confirmation is legitimate, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, as to the burden of litigation costs.

December 3, 1969

Judges at a fixed discretion (Presiding Judge)