(영문) 대전고등법원 2014.2.13.선고 2012누3246 판결

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition to permit the occupation and use of public waters against the defendant's Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as "the intervenor") on March 29, 2011 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Status of the parties

(1) The Plaintiff is carrying on the electric generation business with power generation facilities and ancillary facilities (** a thermal power plant), including a wharf, in the Dog-gu, the power generation facility and ancillary facilities (* a thermal power plant).

(2) On December 16, 2010, the intervenor obtained permission from the defendant for the diversion of the mountainous district for Chungcheongnaman-gun*, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, * Lisan (e.g., this Ri-Do, Do, was divided). On March 7, 201, the intervenor filed a report on the use of the plant and plant management facilities on March 7, 201, and then newly constructs the above land sea-water plantation (hereinafter referred to as the "land-water plantation").

(b) Permission to occupy and use public waters;

On March 29, 2011, pursuant to Article 8 (1) of the former Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act (amended by Act No. 10599, Apr. 14, 2011; hereinafter referred to as the "Public Waters Act"), the Defendant sent the Intervenor an occupation and use permit for the following contents to the Intervenor **** * * * * Doi-Doi-Gu Public Waters (hereinafter referred to as the "instant public waters") and on March 30, 201 pursuant to Article 8 (6) of the Public Waters Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Notice of this case").

The permitted number: Fisheries 2011 - 07 - 02 for the purpose of use: The permitted place for the installation and use of the drain pipe at the land sea-water fish farm: Thai-gun** Myeon* * Risan- the permitted area: 336 square meters: March 29, 2011 to March 28, 2014.

On July 14, 2011, the Plaintiff claimed revocation of the instant disposition to the Administrative Appeals Commission of Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do. However, the Administrative Appeals Commission of Chungcheongnam-do was dismissed on October 6, 201 on the ground that the period for filing a lawsuit was imposed and the eligibility for filing a lawsuit is not recognized.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

A. The assertion that it was illegal in violation of Article 12 of the Public Waters Act

According to Article 12 of the Public Waters Act, the management agency of public waters shall not grant permission to occupy and use public waters if there is a right holder related to the occupancy and use of public waters whose damage is likely to be reduced due to permission to use public waters.

The Korea Electric Power Corporation, the Plaintiff’s telegraph, completed the waste business compensation *** for the neighboring sea areas including the public waters of this case at the time of transfer reclamation projects and construction works of the thermal power plant * for the construction and operation of the thermal power plant, and thereafter for the construction and operation of the large-scale power plant on the land adjacent to the public waters of this case

The Intervenor, while occupying and using the public waters of this case in accordance with the disposition of this case, filed a civil petition and filed a claim for damages by asserting the dust, such as flexible coal, etc. flowing into the public waters of this case as well as the damage caused by power generation and drainage, etc. (in fact, a civil petition is presented). As such, the Plaintiff was unable to properly operate the electricity generation business without installing facilities to prevent the occurrence of serious damage in a size.

Therefore, the disposition of this case which the plaintiff permitted the occupation and use of the public waters of this case to the intervenor without the plaintiff's consent, who is the right holder to occupy and use the public waters of this case as stipulated in Article 12 of the Public Waters Act.

B. The assertion that it was illegal in violation of Article 8(3) of the Public Waters Act

Article 8(3) of the Public Waters Act provides that "where a public water management authority intends to grant permission to occupy and use public waters, it shall consult with the head of the relevant administrative agency in advance as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Therefore, in order to grant permission to occupy and use public waters of this case, it is necessary to consult with the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Minister of Knowledge Economy, Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, but the defendant has a procedural defect in consultation with the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry for Food, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Ministry of Knowledge Economy

If we look at the balancing of public interests and private interests surrounding the disposition of this case, compared to private interests derived from the operation of the land sea plantation as part of the disposition of this case * The damage to public interests, such as the obstruction of the construction of additional expansion of 9 and 10 thermal power plants, and the disruptions to the plaintiff's business, shall be deemed to have been caused by the defendant's disposition of this case. The disposition of this case shall be revoked because it was unlawful because it was a deviation from or abuse of discretionary authority and thus, it shall be revoked.

3. Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

4. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's main defense

(1) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on July 14, 201, which is obvious in fact after the lapse of 90 days from the date of the instant public notice, and was rejected on the ground thereof. It is therefore reasonable that the revocation lawsuit again complies with the period of filing a lawsuit on the ground that the Plaintiff filed a revocation lawsuit on the original disposition within 90 days from the date of receiving a written adjudication after a ruling on an illegal administrative appeal claim was rendered.

(2) The Plaintiff is not the direct counter-party to the instant disposition, and there is a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the instant disposition. However, the damage claimed by the Plaintiff is merely an abstract and factual fact, and does not constitute a legal interest, and thus, the Plaintiff does not have standing to sue.

B. Determination on the Do and defenses of the filing period

The term "date when the party becomes aware of the existence of a disposition, which is the starting point of the filing period of a lawsuit under Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act" means the date when the party becomes aware of the existence of the relevant disposition. The third party, who is not the other party to the administrative disposition, does not regard that the filing period of a lawsuit even after 90 days have elapsed from the date of the disposition, which is generally unknown from the date of the disposition. However, if the third party becomes aware, or could easily know, of the existence of an administrative disposition due to any circumstance, the filing period shall be deemed to run from the time when the third party becomes aware of the existence of the administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du3641, May 24, 2002).

Article 8 (6) of the Public Waters Act provides that "When the public waters management authority grants permission to occupy and use the public waters, it shall make a public announcement of the details thereof as prescribed by Presidential Decree." As a result, it can be seen that the plaintiff, other than the other party to the disposition of this case, was aware of the disposition of this case due to the entry into force of this city.

However, unlike the general cases where an administrative disposition is taken by a public announcement against many and unspecified persons for the benefit of the interested parties, the public announcement under the above provision is made in the following sources: (i) there is no reason to deem that all interested parties were aware of the relevant disposition on the effective date of the public announcement or the date of the public announcement (i.e., in general cases where an administrative disposition is taken against a large number of unspecified persons at a rate by a public announcement or announcement, regardless of whether the interested parties were actually aware of the fact that the public announcement or announcement took effect, the public announcement under the above provision should have been made on the day when the public announcement takes effect (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du1257, Sept. 8, 200; 9Du1257, Sept. 1, 200); and (ii) there is no need to view that the public announcement or announcement was made on the 9th day of this case’s 7th day of this case’s 9th day on which the Plaintiff had no relation to the public announcement or announcement.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case was filed with the lapse of the filing period, the defendant's prior defense to this part of the merits is without merit.

C. Determination on the defense related to standing to sue

(1) Relevant legal principles

Even a third party, who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, is eligible to file an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the administrative disposition, where the legal interests protected by the relevant administrative disposition are infringed. The legal interests referred to in this context refer to the benefits that are individually, directly, and specifically protected by the relevant laws and regulations and regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du330, Mar. 16, 2006). It does not include either indirectly or indirectly, or factual or economic interests (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du11988, May 25, 2006).

However, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff is not only the right to demand the prohibition of occupancy and use of the above public waters by completing the fishery compensation for the area of the public waters of this case, but also the Plaintiff is the right to occupancy and use the public waters as stipulated in Article 12 of the Public Waters Act. If the Plaintiff actually has the said right as to the public waters of this case, or the Plaintiff is the one who has the right likely to be damaged by the permission for occupancy and use of the public waters of this case as stipulated in Article 12 of the Public Waters Act, the Plaintiff has the legal interest to seek the cancellation of the portion of the instant public waters of this case

(2) Facts of recognition

(A) The Korea Electric Power Corporation was divided by around April 2001 under the Act on the Promotion of Restructuring the Electric Power Industry, and was established as five thermal Power Generation Co., Ltd. including the Plaintiff and one hydroelectric Power Resource Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff succeeded to the rights and obligations of the Korea Electric Power Corporation ** the Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd.

(b)Agreement between the Korea Electric Power Corporation and Taean-gun relating to the diversity Reclamation Project.

1) The Korea Electric Power Corporation applied for a national land utilization plan for the construction of a thermal power plant* on January 30, 1987. However, when the above application was rejected due to the Cheongnam-do that it overlaps with the reclamation project plan of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Korea Electric Power Corporation proposed on July 8, 1987 that the reclamation project and *** the construction project of a thermal power plant shall jointly proceed with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry consented thereto.

2) After having undergone a series of consultations, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Ministry of Electricity and Agriculture and Fisheries shared with the Korea Electric Power Corporation on June 16, 1992 at the cost and compensation 26.83% of the project cost and compensation for reclamation projects in the beyond the dive area. However, the Korea Electric Power Corporation finally consulted with the implementation of the Korea Electric Power Corporation on the fishing right compensation for the power plant construction impact on the front of the power plant outside the reclaimed project area.

3) On November 12, 1992, the Korea Electric Power Corporation and Thai-gun, the implementer of the Leewon-gun reclamation project in the original reclamation project zone *** In relation to compensation for fishery damage caused by the construction of thermal power, the reported fishery shall compensate for the entire area and the licensed fishery shall be compensated for six cases (Nos. 14, 70, 1482, 1501, 1505, and 70 of the above license shall be limited to 501 Seas, as in the instant public waters) within the scope of impact on the construction of the electric power plant, and the budget required for compensation and other expenses shall be borne by the Korea Electric Power Corporation at the request of the Taean-gun.

4) Thai-gun claimed KRW 3.78 billion in the budget required for compensation for fishery damage caused by the construction of thermal power and received the payment from the Korea Electric Power Corporation.

5) On October 193, 1993, the Korea Electric Power Corporation entered into a contract with Taean-gun on the acquisition of part of the reclaimed land in the Leewon-gun's reclaimed land (the 35th portion of the site for the power plant and the 250th total of the site for the company) which was being promoted with the approval of reclamation of public waters from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries for the purpose of farmland creation. The compensation for the transferred or acquired area shall be apportioned according to the "the details agreed upon by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy on June 16, 1992" but the above compensation was to be implemented by Taean-gun.

(C)** Compensation for damage caused by the construction of a thermal power plant

1) The Korea Electric Power Corporation requested research to the Korea Maritime Research Institute on the "** the impact analysis of damage due to the construction of a thermal power plant, and the calculation of the amount of damage fishing rights and the amount of damage compensation for fishing vessels." On August 1995, the Korea Maritime Research Institute reported that part of the 501 Sea Areas containing the public waters of this case should be destroyed.

2) The Korea Electric Power Corporation: * On November 27, 1995, entered into a written agreement with the owner of the compensation recipients ( seven licensed fisheries; 36 vessels) who have been engaged in fisheries in the affected areas, with respect to compensation for fishery damage due to the construction of the thermal power plant, and paid 3,782,80,804,870 won to the fishermen in accordance with the agreement.

(D) Compensation for the Public Waters Reclamation of this case

1) The fish business compensation for the area of the Joan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the public waters in the instant case was written as follows: “*** the details of the payment of fishing compensation related to the thermal power (Evidence No. 23-3 of the evidence No. 23 of the evidence No. 33 of the evidence No. 33),* the compensation for thermal power damage (Evidence No. 33-2 of the evidence No. 33)” and “the compensation for the damage of the thermal power advance construction (Evidence No. 33-2 of the evidence No. 33)”, etc.

2) Meanwhile, the instant public waters area is included in the 501 Sea Areas among the damaged forecast areas due to the construction and operation of a thermal power plant. The said 501 Sea Areas were included in the 501 Sea Areas, and the expected damage rate has reached 515%. However, fishery compensation in this area was already made in the process of the ebbbban reclamation project, and the Korea Electric Power Corporation did not capture ** the fishery compensation area directly paid by the Korea Electric Power Corporation due to the construction of a thermal power plant.

(E) Permission to occupy and use the public waters of this case and details of the fishery license

The Defendant did not grant the permit to occupy and use public waters in the neighboring sea areas including the public waters of this case, and the fishery license was granted at Nos. 306, 378, 427, 59, and 60 of the Taean Village No. 306, 378, 427, and Taean Village No. 59, and 60 of the Taean Village No. 300, but * the fishery license was granted upon receipt of each letter of consent that he would not file a civil petition, such as any compensation claim due

(F) Location, etc. of the instant public waters

1) The instant public waters are located within a range of *** the Plaintiff’s operation from the thermal power plant site to a minimum of 200 meters, but such public waters are located within a range of *** the impact of the thermal effluents emitted from the thermal power plant (not less than 3-4 km).

2) The instant aquaculture is linked to the Plaintiff’s thermal power plant and the Plaintiff’s thermal power plant immediately, and the Intervenor has immediately demanded that the Plaintiff prevent damage caused by coal dust, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 23, 31 through 33, Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including branch numbers), the result of on-site inspection by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

(3) Whether the Plaintiff has the right to demand the prohibition of permission to occupy and use the public waters of this case

As seen in paragraph (2) above, the Plaintiff is determined to have paid compensation by providing extinguished compensation for the fishery rights existing on the public waters at the time of the dual reclaimed plant in relation to the public waters in this case *** in relation to the fishery rights existing on the public waters in this case due to the construction and operation of a thermal power plant (the Defendant asserts that the compensation for fishery damage to the public waters in this case *** in relation to the transfer of the right to reclaim the public waters in this case due to the construction and operation of a thermal power plant). However, the 501 Seas including the public waters in this case was classified into the area above the extinguishment of the fishery right due to the power plant construction and operation of a nuclear power plant, as the 501 Seas including the public waters in this case was classified into the area below the fishing right due to the power plant construction and operation of a nuclear power plant.** in consideration of the situation at the time of compensating for damage to the public waters in this case * the compensation for the public waters in this case excluding the public waters area in this case).

Meanwhile, Article 11(1) of the Fisheries Act provides that the head of Si/Gun/Gu may choose not to grant a fishery license if necessary for public works under Article 4 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (Article 34(1)6 of the Fisheries Act). Article 43(2) of the same Act provides that a fishery license may be restricted or imposed if deemed necessary to protect public interests under Article 34(1)6 of the same Act, etc. and that the development of a new fishing ground shall be prohibited on the waters, the compensation for which is completed for which is closed for public works according to the detailed guidelines for the development of the fishing ground in 2010.

In full view of the facts of this case, **** in the nearest public waters of the thermal power plant *** in the area where the development of the new fishing ground or the new fishery license is prohibited or restricted on the surface of the water, the compensation for closure of the public works, which is the public works of the thermal power plant, was completed. In fact, the Defendant issued a fishery license to neighboring sea areas, including the public waters of this case, and *** in the course of granting a fishery license to neighboring sea areas including the public waters of this case * in the course of requesting any compensation due to the thermal power plant, etc. However, even if the Plaintiff completed the fishery compensation for the public waters of this case, it is merely the effect of the Plaintiff’s offering the new fishing ground or new fishery license as above due to compensation for damages to the fishery right, and cannot be said to have acquired the Plaintiff’s right to exclusively or indirectly

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s right to demand the prohibition of occupancy or use permission of the instant public waters.

(4) Whether the Plaintiff is a right holder related to the occupancy and use of public waters under Article 12 of the Public Waters Act

It seems that the plaintiff's permission to occupy and use public waters prescribed in the main sentence of Article 12 of the Public Waters Act falls under "a person who has the right prescribed by Presidential Decree as a right expected to be damaged."

(A) Whether a person has a right prescribed by Presidential Decree

Article 12 (1) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Act provides that "the owner or possessor of adjoining land or artificial structure" is "the person who has the right prescribed by Presidential Decree".

However, when comprehensively considering the purport of the entire argument as a result of on-site inspection by the first instance court, the public waters of this case are ** the public waters of this case are operated by the plaintiff * at least 200 meters away from the site of a thermal power plant, but such public waters are included ***** the number of power generation and drainage discharged from a thermal power plant, and the head of this case who occupies and uses the public waters of this case is found to have been directly connected with the plaintiff's thermal power plant. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff falls under the "owner or possessor of an adjacent land or artificial structure" as referred to in the above provision.

(B) Whether "the right to be damaged" is "the right to be damaged"

Article 12 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Act provides that "in determining whether a right is likely to be damaged pursuant to Article 12 of the Act, the right holder can not use the public waters or adjacent land according to the name of the right holder (Article 12 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Act), and whether the right holder can not use the public waters or adjacent land properly (Article 12 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Act) without taking such measures as the installation of facilities to prevent damage."

With respect to this case, the statement Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, and 11 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the entire argument at the court of first instance is added to the result of on-site inspection of the court of first instance. ① Residents engaged in fisheries, aquaculture, etc. in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s thermal power plant have filed a civil petition against the Plaintiff for noise, scattering dust, sprinkling water, adverse effects on the power generation water, etc. from 2009 to 2009, and even have been claimed for damages; ② the Defendant established a fishery license in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s thermal power plant; ② the Plaintiff’s establishment of a civil petition, * the Plaintiff’s request for any compensation due to a thermal power plant, etc. ③ The cultivation of this case is immediately adjacent to the Plaintiff’s thermal power plant, and the observer may not be seen as the Plaintiff’s right to the evidence and the purport of the overall disposal of this case, including the evidence and the purport of each of the following.

1) Article 12 of the Public Waters Act provides that a person who has already enjoyed rights, such as the right to occupy and use public waters, fishery rights, and ownership of neighboring earth and artificial structures, may be likely to suffer damage which would become unable to exercise the existing rights due to the permission to occupy and use the public waters in question. The "damage" refers to the damage that the existing right holder may incur due to the permission to use and use the public waters in question (including the plaintiff's assertion that the amount equivalent to the expenses that the plaintiff would incur due to the prevention of damage or the payment of damages to the participant under the above provision). Therefore, "facilities to prevent damage" under Article 12 (4) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Act mean facilities installed by the existing right holder (the plaintiff) to prevent the "damage to be occupied" as the permission to use and use the public waters in question, and it is difficult for the existing right holder (including the plaintiff's facilities to prevent the damage to the plaintiff's facilities (the plaintiff) to be installed in accordance with the permission to use and use the public waters in question.

2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Intervenor could not operate a thermal power plant without installing facilities to prevent damage, such as in-depth drainage facilities, which caused the Plaintiff’s enormous costs due to the Intervenor’s civil petition or damages claim. However, in several cases where nearby fishermen claimed damage from power generation and drainage and claimed damages against the Plaintiff, the fishermen’s claim was dismissed due to lack of proof as to the requirements. In the case of the Intervenor, the Intervenor started the aquaculture business upon receiving the instant disposition under the circumstances where the Plaintiff knew that the Plaintiff was operating a thermal power plant in the vicinity of the public waters of this case. In such a case, it is difficult to assess that the Intervenor’s damage was incurred due to the Plaintiff’s normal operation of the thermal power plant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da1529, Nov. 23, 199). Thus, the Intervenor’s claim cannot be deemed to have been accepted, barring any special circumstances.

3) In addition, the Intervenor, etc. asserted damage caused by coal dust, toxic gas, malodor, etc. that flows into the present cultivation site of this case, and did not claim damage caused by power generation and drainage flowing into the public waters of this case. It is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff was in a yellow situation where to prevent damage by taking expenses in connection with the instant disposition, which is the permission to occupy and use the public waters of this case ( even according to the entries of evidence No. 4 and the result of the on-site inspection by the court of first instance, the Intervenor, etc. filed a civil petition against the Plaintiff regarding the impact on the instant cultivation, and there is no all the fact that the Intervenor filed a civil petition related to the public waters of this case. However, the damage claimed as the original high-priced water storage is not caused by the permission to occupy and use the public waters of this case, rather than by the permission to use and use the public waters of this case).

4) Other damages claimed by the Plaintiff, i.e., damage compensation or damage compensation to the Intervenor due to power plant 9,10 cases currently in construction, or the Intervenor may claim damages due to power generation and drainage by changing fish species later, and damages caused by the Intervenor and its members’ response to civil petitions, etc. were not yet occurred, and cannot be deemed as damage due to permission for occupation and use or use of the public waters of this case, or as direct and specific damage.

5) In addition, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff could not use the electric power plant’s land in accordance with the purpose of the right solely based on the aforementioned circumstances.

(C) If so, with respect to the defendant's disposition of this case against the intervenor, the plaintiff does not constitute "a person who has a right to be injured due to permission to occupy and use public waters as stipulated in Article 12 of the Act on the Amnesty of Public Waters."

(5) Ultimately, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have the right to demand the prohibition of permission for occupation and use of the public waters as a result of the fishery compensation for the area of the public waters in this case, and further, the damages equivalent to the expenses for the prevention facilities to be installed due to the Plaintiff’s civil petition or claim for damages, etc. claimed by the Plaintiff, are merely an infringement of either indirectly or factual and economic interests pursuant to the disposition in this case, and there is no other evidence to determine that the Plaintiff has the legal interest to seek the cancellation of the disposition in this case. Accordingly, the Defendant’s objection to this part of the instant case that the Plaintiff has no standing to seek the cancellation of the disposition

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is filed by a person who has no standing to sue, it is inappropriate and therefore, the defense before the lawsuit is justified (Therefore, the plaintiff's argument does not need to be examined further). 5.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

Notarial Award (Presiding Judge)

Excursion ship poles

Madonia

Note tin

1) This Act aims at the division support, etc. of the Korea Electric Power Corporation under the Korea Electric Power Corporation Act and only until December 31, 2009.

shall have effect.

2) The official use of Korea Electric Power Corporation for the size of the whole public waters (1,325 h) with the exception of the area of the fenced bank (1,026 h)

The occupied area of the water surface (35 ha of the power plant site, 250 ha of the coal materials reclamation company) ratio

3) If interpreted as alleged by the Plaintiff, “damage” under Article 12 of the Public Waters Act and Article 12(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Act are interpreted as alleged by the Plaintiff.

The term "damage prevention facilities" as referred to in paragraph (1) means any difference in the "damage prevention facilities" at all, and such an interpretation shall be made in the relevant regulations.

It is difficult to adopt the same meaning as used because it is interpreted differently.

Site of separate sheet

Relevant statutes

/ The Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act

Article 8 (Permission to Occupy and Use Public Waters)

(1) Any person who intends to perform an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall obtain permission for occupancy or use (hereinafter referred to as "permission for occupancy or use") (hereinafter referred to as "permission for occupancy or use") from the Ri of the public waters management office, as prescribed by Presidential Decree: Provided, That the same shall not apply where a person who has obtained a reclamation license pursuant to Article 28 intends to occupy or use public waters for sea year within the scope of the purpose of obtaining the reclamation license:

5. Drawing in water from public waters or flowing out water to public waters: Provided, That Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs;

all acts specified in this section shall be excluded.

(3) Where the management agency of public waters intends to grant an occupancy or use permit, it shall consult in advance with the head of the relevant administrative agency, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(6) Where the management agency of public waters grants a permit for occupancy or use or a permit for change referred to in paragraph (4), it shall publicly announce the details thereof, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 12 (Standards for Permission for Occupation and Use, etc.)

Where a person has a right likely to be prejudiced due to such permit, consultation or approval, which is determined by Presidential Decree (hereafter referred to as "person entitled to occupancy or use of public waters" in this subparagraph) in granting permission for occupancy or use or holding consultation on or giving approval for occupancy or use pursuant to Articles 8 and 10, the management agency of public waters shall not grant such permission, consultation or give approval: Provided, That the foregoing shall not apply to any of the following cases:

1. Where a person entitled to occupancy or use of public waters consents to the occupancy or use of the relevant public waters;

2. Occupancy and use by the State or local governments for public activities prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as national defense or the prevention of natural disasters;

1. Where it is intended:

m. Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act

Article 12 (Right Holders, etc.)

(1) "Person who has a right prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the main sentence of Article 12 of the Act means any of the following persons:

1. A person who has obtained permission for occupancy or use under Article 8 of the Act;

2. A reclamation licensee referred to in Article 28 of the Act;

3. A fishery holder under subparagraph 11 of Article 2 of the Fisheries Act;

4. A person who has obtained a fishery license under Article 8 of the Fisheries Act;

5. A person who has obtained permission for sectional fisheries, cultivation of fisheries in inland sea water and seed production fisheries under Article 41 (3) of the Fisheries Act.

6. An owner or occupant of adjacent land or artificial structures;

7. The owner or occupant of the shipbuilding yard (the public waters required for commercial building of the ship in the shipbuilding yard), which is underwater water.

Permission for public waters not exceeding 3 times the maximum length of a commercial building from the end of the shop stand (ship stand)

· Cases of consultation or approval only

(4) The management agency of public waters shall examine the following standards in determining as to whether a right likely to be damaged pursuant to Article 12 of the Act:

1. A right holder referred to in any subparagraph of paragraph (1) according to the purpose of his/her right by the relevant occupancy or use permit, consultation, or approval;

Whether it is impossible to use public waters or adjacent land;

2. Drawing up the public waters or adjoining land without taking such measures as construction of facilities for preventing damage;

Whether or not they can not be regularly used

심급 사건

-대전지방법원 2012.11.28.선고 2011구합5461

대전고등법원 2014.2.13.선고 2012누3246

-대법원 2014.9.4.선고 2014두5163

참조조문

-공유수면 관리 및 매립에 관한 법률

-공유수면 관리 및 매립에 관한 법률 제8조 제1항

-공유수면 관리 및 매립에 관한 법률 제8조 제3항

-공유수면 관리 및 매립에 관한 법률 제8조 제6항