A fisheries cooperative by district may acquire a fishery right in order to have its members exercise the fishery right.

A fisheries cooperative by district may acquire a fishery right in order to have its members exercise the fishery right.

Articles 67 and 6 of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, Article 8 of the Fisheries Act

Healian Fisheries Cooperatives pool Fisheries Cooperatives

Bank of Korea Fisheries Cooperatives

Supreme Court Decision 68Na241 delivered on July 23, 1969, Decision 68Na241 delivered on July 23, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

In light of the purport of Articles 67(1) and 6 of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, it is reasonable to interpret that fisheries cooperatives by district can not, in principle, engage in the business with respect to the fishery rights under Article 8 of the Fisheries Act, for profit-making, speculative business, or the interest of only some members, without limit to the joint fishery rights. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that the fishery rights can be acquired for profit-making purposes, but the members of the association can exercise the fishery rights in order to cause them to acquire the fishery rights. Such interpretation is justified in the holding that Article 67(2) of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act provides that the fisheries cooperatives by district shall operate the fishery and businesses incidental thereto for common interests of the members upon the consent of at least 2/3 of the members of the association or the approval of the Administrator of the Fisheries Administration. Article 15(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act provides that the fisheries cooperatives by district can carry on the same business as the exercise of the fishery rights held by the affiliated association to achieve its purpose. According to the purport of pleading, the reasoning of the judgment below is justified.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 4, 5, and 6 are examined.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that a license for fish farming business cannot be acquired through practice and must be licensed from the Do Governor. In other words, if the plaintiff fishing village fraternity intends to engage in fish farming business such as the case of fishery business other than joint fishing business, it shall obtain the approval of the Do Governor (the fact that the court below held that the plaintiff fishing village fraternity is the Administrator of the Fisheries Administration) pursuant to Article 15 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, and it shall not obtain such approval procedure, and it shall be confirmed that the defendant union did not grant the plaintiff fishing village fraternity the right to exercise the fishery right of this case. According to the evidence No. 27 and No. 28 of the lawsuit No. 27 and No. 28, it can be known that the plaintiff fishing village fraternity was authorized by the Do Governor that it can carry on the business such as the traditional fishing ground and fish farm in the district association under its jurisdiction from the Do Governor to the Do Governor, but the authorization for the establishment shall be limited to the approval of the Do Governor for the business purpose of the fishery business.

The ground of appeal No. 7 is examined.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the establishment of Article 10 (2) of the Subdembal Fisheries Cooperatives Act as the ground for the defendant's association's acquisition of fishery right, and that in the right to fish farming, the provision on the practice of free trade under Article 40 of the same Act shall be excluded. Thus, the court below's decision did not err in the misapprehension of the reasoning.

The grounds of appeal No. 9 are examined.

As to the fishing ground of this case, five fishing village fraternities in the same letter, letter, letter, Dong, Dong, and book were the applicant and the plaintiff fishing village fraternity was the respondent, even if the plaintiff's application was rejected and the decision became final and conclusive as to the case of a provisional disposition prohibiting fishery obstruction, such as the case of the lawsuit against the plaintiff's fishing village fraternity and the defendant's association, it is not reasonable to argue that the original judgment is in conflict with the final and conclusive judgment (the fact that the decision was not asserted in the original judgment).

The grounds of appeal No. 8 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that with respect to the dispute 561,00 square meters in this case, the plaintiff fishing village fraternity did not have the right to exercise the right to engage in fish farming and it cannot be viewed that it exclusively occupies the fishery right. Accordingly, according to the records, the court below's rejection of the exclusion from infringement is not erroneous in the process of finding facts in the court below's decision, and there is no error of law as to the rejection of the exclusion from infringement on the part of the plaintiff's right to participate in the preliminary claim based on the right to engage in fish farming.

The appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)