208Guhap48640 Confirmation of Claim for Compensation for Loss

○ fishing village fraternity

Korea

May 27, 2009

May 29, 2009

1. The lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

It is confirmed that the plaintiff has the right to claim compensation due to the ○ temporary construction.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, and Eul evidence 2:

A. On April 26, 1995, the ○ Fisheries Cooperatives: (a) obtained a license for a brinal fish farming business with the validity period of 50,000 meters from ○○○○○○○○ Fishing Ground, which was set from April 26, 1995 to April 25, 2005; and (b) transferred the fishery right to the Plaintiff with the authorization of the ○○ City around September 1, 2003.

B. On January 27, 2005, the Plaintiff obtained permission for the extension of the 10-year term of validity with respect to the above fishery business, and on July 6, 2006, the Plaintiff obtained a license for the double-type fish farming business as stipulated from July 7, 2006 to April 25, 2015 with respect to the same fishing ground under the said license number No. ○○○○○○○○○, a substitute for the said fishery business license, with respect to the same fishing ground. The alternative fishery business license was attached to the father’s failure to give up all compensation for damage caused by the construction of the ○○ inland bridge.

C. On October 5, 2004, the ○○ Regional Land Management Office under the Defendant’s control determined and publicly announced an annual temporary construction road zone from ○○○ to OOO as a general national highway No. 2004-231, which was designated as a road route.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit

The Plaintiff asserted that the above fishing ground of the Plaintiff’s above fishery license was included in the road zone determined and publicly notified by the Defendant and incurred losses to the above fishery right due to the above construction works executed by the Defendant, but the Defendant did not compensate for losses due to the additional clauses of the fishery license that was remarkably and obviously invalid and invalid. As such, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the Defendant’s claim for compensation for damages related to the above fishery right.

Article 25 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 8976 of March 21, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "former Road Act") provides that a road zone shall be determined without delay when the designation of a road route is made, or when the designation of a road route is recognized or altered is announced. Article 49-2 (1) of the former Road Act provides that a road management agency may expropriate or use land, buildings, or fixtures on such land, or rights other than ownership of such land, buildings, or fixtures, or fixtures on such land in a road zone when it is deemed necessary for the implementation of road works. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that the determination or alteration of a road zone and the determination or alteration of a road zone under Article 25 shall be subject to public interest projects, and the application for the determination or alteration of a road zone under Article 20 (1) and 22 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Interest Projects (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Works Act") may be made within the implementation period of a road project under Article 28 (3) of the same Act.

However, Article 61 of the Public Works Act recognizes a claim for compensation for losses sustained by a landowner or person concerned by reducing the acquisition or use of the land, etc. required for the public works by providing that the project operator shall compensate for such losses. Accordingly, when the landowner or person concerned consults with the project operator and fails to reach an agreement pursuant to Article 26 of the same Act, the landowner or person concerned can only receive compensation according to the result of the adjudication or administrative litigation filed by the competent Land Tribunal pursuant to the application for adjudication of the project operator (the landowner or person concerned may request the project operator to file an application for adjudication as prescribed by Article 30 of the same Act), and cannot seek confirmation of the claim for compensation for losses due to administrative litigation against the project operator.

According to the above legal doctrine, the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of the claim for compensation as an administrative litigation against the Defendant, a business operator, as a fishery right holder, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

Judges of the presiding judge 000 1

Judges ○○○

Judges OOO