logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원 2016.04.21 2015가합11386
공원사업시행허가명의변경동의 청구의 소
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff related to the parties is a fishing village fraternity established pursuant to Article 15 of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act with the aim of enhancing the productivity of the members of the fishing village fraternity at the Mari-ri 1st, coastline and its members, and conducting joint projects for increasing their economic and social status.

Defendant F decided to conduct the excursion ship business on the NN coast line at the time of macroscing, and on March 16, 198, after obtaining permission for occupation and use of public waters and installation of structures from macroscopies, Defendant F installed a bridge and a landing bridge for the bet line at the An coast line at the above coast line (hereinafter “instant facility”).

Defendant F agreed to own 2/3 shares of the instant facility and 1/3 shares of the instant facility, and the Plaintiff, from March 1990, collected 7% of the revenue from the excursion ship proprietor using the instant facility as the fee.

B. On December 21, 1996, the Korea National Park Authority: (a) reflected the part related to the instant facilities in the Korea Coastal National Park Plan; and (b) accordingly, four owners, including Defendant F, etc., applied for permission to implement a park project to the Korea National Park Authority on December 1, 1998, according to the opinion of the Korea National Park Authority that it is required to obtain permission to implement a park project, and (c) did not submit a written consent, against the permission to implement a park project on the ground that the Plaintiff’s damage to village fishing grounds was caused to the Korea National Park Authority; and (d) the Korea National Park Authority rejected the said application on the ground that the Plaintiff did not consent.

Accordingly, the defendant F, G, H, I and the defendant B, C, D, and E-4 representing the plaintiff, who are the owner of a scenic line, applied for permission to implement a park project under the joint name of the defendant B, C, D, and E. The National Park Management Corporation (amended by Act No. 6450 of Mar. 28, 2001) shall designate the defendants as joint project implementers on November 5, 1999.

arrow