(영문) 대구고등법원 2020.5.22.선고 2019누4692 판결

On November 21, 2018, Defendant A revoked a 30-day disposition of suspension of fishery of heading C (20 tons) and D (23 tons) against the Plaintiff respectively.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

It is as set forth in the text.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in accordance with the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 12, 13, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, 12, 13, and 1 (including branch numbers if no particular indication is made; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings, and no counter-proof exists:

A. On May 14, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained permission to engage in fishery business within a demarcated political zone (B dry Net Fisheries No. *******) and used G (1.07 tons) as a control line for the control of the above fishing ground.

On August 16, 2018, the Plaintiff obtained a political network fishery license from the Friuri Ethmp (hereinafter referred to as the "Frith fishing ground") on the north-west Ethmp (hereinafter referred to as the "Frith fishing ground"), and used (B) No. *, 30 L), and C (20 tons) and D (23 tons) as the management line for the control of fishing ground.

B. On October 21, 2018, at around 11:40 and around 11:50 on October 21, 2018, Defendant: (a) issued the first warning to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the use of the Plaintiff’s heading C and D beyond the Fri fishing ground area, which is the relevant licensing area, constitutes a violation of Article 27(1) of the Fisheries Act, which allows the fishery right holder to designate a management vessel B and use it for the management of fishing grounds; and (b) issued the first warning to the Plaintiff on each of the above fishing vessels (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). (A evidence 1-2)

On November 22, 2018, the Defendant stated that the holder of fishery right should use the management vessel B in the designated fishing ground area, and revised the applicable law stated in the instant disposition under Article 47(4) of the Fisheries Act (A evidence No. 1-5).

C. The statutes related to the instant disposition are as shown in the attached Form 2.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Non-existence of grounds for disposition

The plaintiff obtained a permit from the defendant to change a political zone from the former F branch line to H branch line, and accordingly there is a need to newly install a fishing net in the altered fishing zone. Accordingly, the plaintiff only used subparagraph C and subparagraph D to transport a fixed anchor for fishing nets to the above changed fishing zone. Thus, the above fishing vessel is not used for the capture, gathering, and cultivation of marine animals and plants. Accordingly, the disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiff violated Article 27 (4) of the Fisheries Act shall be revoked as unlawful.

(b)the deviation and abuse of discretionary authority;

Taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Act and subordinate statutes governing fisheries restrict the scale of a management line for fishery business within a demarcated area of less than eight tons; (b) the Plaintiff’s Gho Lake designated as a management line for the control of fishery business within a demarcated area of political area of less than 1.07 tons was practically difficult to carry out the transport of the fishing net or relocation work; (c) the Plaintiff has faithfully complied with the relevant statutes related to fisheries; (d) there was no likelihood of being discovered or disposed of any similar violation in the past; and (e) the Plaintiff would suffer economic serious shock if the operation is suspended for three months due to the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff was excessively harsh to the extent that it is unlawful for the Plaintiff to deviate from or abuse its discretionary power.

3. Determination

A. According to Article 27(1) of the Fisheries Act, a fishery right holder shall obtain designation from the head of a Si/Gun/Gu to use a fishing vessel necessary for the control of fishing ground of his/her fishery (hereinafter referred to as "management vessel"). According to Article 27(4) of the same Act, a fishery right holder designated as such shall not use a management vessel for the purpose of catching, gathering, or cultivating marine animals and plants in the waters other than the designated fishing ground zone or the approved zone (excluding omission), and pursuant to Article 27(5) of the same Act, the size and number of the management vessels, engine paralysis and the designation or approval of the use thereof, and other necessary matters for the use of the management vessel shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (the proviso omitted); Article 3 of the Rules on Permission for and Report on Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as "fishery permit rules"); Article 28(2) of the former Ordinance on the Management of Fishing Grounds (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance on the Management of Fishing Grounds") and Article 28(3) of the Fisheries Act (the Ordinance on the Management of Fishing Grounds).

4. It provides that "it may be used for expenses of fishing grounds or monitoring illegal fishing, 5. Fishery resources formation, 6. Other purposes concerning the protection and management of fishing grounds."

B. Recognizing facts1) The fishing nets used by Plaintiff 1 for a political zone is one of the nets as follows: (a) the fishing nets consisting of three parts of the paths, and the fishing nets consisting of 10 parts of the sea-beds (1.3 tons per unit weight) are fixed to the bottom below the sea level; (b) the fishing nets consisting of 2 lines consisting of 10 anchors (1.3 tons per unit weight). At the time of operation, Plaintiff 2 changed the fishing nets into B-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri (1.6 tons per unit weight). At the time of operation, Plaintiff 2 changed the fishing nets into B-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri (16th unit).

3 ) 원고 는 위와같이 어장구역이 변경됨에 따라 새로운 어망 을 J리어장 에 설치 하기로 하고 2018. 10.21. 11:40경 닿으로 사용될 모래주머니 2묶음(1.3톤 × 20개 =26 톤 ) 을 C 호 와 D 호 에실어 J리어장까지 운반한 후 그 중 일부를 하선하다가 수산업법 위반 으로 피고 에게 단속되는 바람에 작업을 중단하고 복귀하였다.다. 검토 관계 법령 의 문언과 취지 및 위 인정사실과 갑 제8호증의 기재에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음 과 같은 사정을 종합하면, 원고가 F리어장 관리선인 C 호와 D 호 를 사용하여 J리어 장 에 설치할 어망 고정용 닻 을 J리어장까지 운반하고 하선한 행위(이하 '어망운반 행위 ' 라 한다 ) 는 수산업법 제27조 제4항이 관리선의 지정받은 어장구역 외 수면 사용금지 대상 으로 정하고 있는 '수산동식물 을 포획 ·채취·양식하는행위'에 해당하지 않는다고 봄 이 타당 하다. 1 ) 수산업법 제 27조 제4항 위반행위에 대하여는 면허정지 내지 면허취소와 같은 행정 제재 가 따를 뿐만 아니라(수산관계법령 위반행위에 대한 행정처분의 기준과 절차에 관한 규칙 제 4 조별표 참조) 나아가 2년 이하의 징역이나 2천만 원 이하의 벌금에 해당 하는 형사 처벌 까지 받게 되므로(수산업법 제98조 제4호 참조), 위 조항이 정하고 있는 ' 수산 동식물 의포획·채취·양식'의 의미는 법령에 사용된 문언과 입법취지 등 을 고려 하여 엄격 하고 신중하게해석하여야한다. 2 ) 일반적 으로 '포획·채취'는 이동하거나 고착하고 있는 자연의 동식물 등을 사로 잡아 사람 의 지배 하에 옮기는 행위를 의미하고,'양식'은 동식물 등 을 인공적으로 길러서 번식 시키는 행위를 의미한다. 그런데 만일 수산업법 제27조 제4 항 에 정해진 '수산동 식물 의 포획 · 채취 ·양식'의 개념을 그 본연의 행위 및 이와 직접적이거나 밀접하게 연관된 작업 의 범위를 넘어서 포획·채취·양식에 필요한 준비작업까지 포함된다고 해석 하는 경우 에는 , 어구 의 운반·설치와 같은 어망운반행위 뿐만 아니라 일반적으로'포획 · 채취 · 양식 ' 과 는별개의 행위라고 인식되는 '어업인 운송행위'(면허관리규칙 제28조 제 3 항 제 1 호 , 제 2호 는 이를 구별하고 있다), 더 나아가 어구 제작과 같은 전제행위나 어구 철거 와 같은 정리행위까지도 위 '수산동식물의 포획·채취·양식'에 포함되어 수산업법 제 27 조 제 4항의 무분별한 확장을 초래한다. 3 ) 정치성 구획 어업은 정해진 조업구역에 어망을 설치한 후 어장 내의 회유성 어종을 포집 하는 방식 으로 이루어지는 점, 정치성구획어업을 위한 어망운반행위는 대상 어종 의 포획 · 채취 · 양식을 위한 선행단계에 해당할 뿐이고 그 본질적인 행위와 는 구별되는 점 , 원고 는 정치성구획어업에 필요한 허가(변경허가)를 이미 받은 점, 어업권자는 어장 에 대해 관리 선을 지정· 승인받지 못한 경우에도(수산업법 제27조 제2항, 제3항) 해당 어장 의 관리 에필요한 각각의 행위에 대하여 개별적으로 허가·신고를 받음으로써 ( 수산업법 제 41 조 ,제47조) 이를 적법하게 수행할 수 있는 점, 뒤에서 보는 관리 선지정 제도 의 취지 에 비추어 비록 관리선으로 지정된 어선이라 하더라도 그 지정된 어장 구역 을 벗어난 경우에는 그 밖의 어선과 다를 바 없어 수산업법이 정한 어업의 면허· 허가 · 신고 규정 ( 제 8조, 제41조, 제47조)이 적용되어야 할 것인데, 피고는 C 호 와 D호가 어업 의 면허 허가 ·신고요건을 위반하였다고 주장하고 있지 않은 점, 해양수산부장관은 2006. 10. 30. 어선이 당해 어선의 사용 이 허가된 어업 외의다른 어업에 사용되는 어선 의 조업 활동 을돕거나 도움을 받기 위하여 이를 사용하여서는 아니 된다고 규정 한 수산 자원 보호령 제 23조의2 제1항 에 대하여'어획대상을 직접 포획·채취하는 조업행위를 의미 한다 ' 고 해석한 바 있는 점(을 제2호증의 2) 등 을 고려하면, 원고가 위와 같이 어망 운반 행위 를 하였더라도 그것이 수산업법이 의도하는 어업의 면허· 허가·신고제도나 G 호 에 대한 관리선 지정 취지를 훼손 또는 잠탈한다고 보기 어렵다. 4 ) 앞서 본 원고의 어망운반행위가 수산업법 제27조 제4 항 에 정해진 '수산동식물의 포획 · 채취 · 양식'에 포함된다고 해석하는 경우에는, 적어도 J리어장 구역에서 고정된 어망 을 설치 하는방법으로 정치성구획어업을 영위하는 원고로서는 J리어장까지 G호 는 물론 그 밖의어선을 사용하여 어망을 운반할 수 없게 되는 납득할 수 없는결과로 된다. 왜냐하면 ,위 운반경로에 있는 수면은 J리어장 관리선인 G 호 에 대해서도'지

Since the act of transporting fishing nets using Gho Lakes constitutes "water waters other than the designated fishing ground zone", it is against Article 27 (4) of the Fisheries Act because the controlled vessel engaged in catching, gathering, or cultivating marine animals and plants outside the designated fishing ground zone, and the use of fishing vessels other than G is also a violation of Article 41 or 47 of the Fisheries Act, and the fishery division of the sea would be a fishing vessel not permitted to engage in the relevant fishery business. (5) The fishery division of the Korea Coast Guard of March 5, 2019 that used a fishing vessel owned by another person not designated as the controlled vessel in installing facilities for this seaweeds from the Commissioner of the Korea Coast Guard of the Korea Coast Guard of the Korea Coast Guard of 200,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000.

6) The Defendant asserts that the act such as transportation of fishing nets may be included in the “protection and management of fishing grounds” under Article 28(8) of the License Management Rule, which is regarded as one of the areas of use of fishing boats, and thus, the Plaintiff’s use of J fishing grounds G-ho, a fishing ground management vessel, in order to transport fishing nets from J fishing grounds, and the use of C-ho or D, a fishing ground management vessel, goes beyond the scope of use of the management vessel.

However, Article 28(8) of the Regulations on License Management differs from the division of Article 27(4) of the Fisheries Act, which is a norm prohibiting the restriction on the use of a control vessel, by delegation under Article 27(5) of the Fisheries Act, which is a norm allowing the use of a control vessel. [The purport of Article 27(1) of the Fisheries Act, which allows a fishery right holder to obtain designation of a control vessel and use it for the management of the fishing ground, is to allow a fishery right holder to use the control vessel without any separate permission (report) even if it is not within the scope of the permitted fishery, so the use of the control vessel can be widely recognized insofar as it is within the fishing ground area.] Therefore, the pertinent provision of the above Regulations on License Management cannot be deemed as the ground of interpretation under Article 27(4) of the Fisheries Act, and the above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted.

The plaintiff's act of transporting fishing nets does not correspond to "the capture, collection, and cultivation of marine animals and plants" under Article 27 (4) of the Fisheries Act, but the defendant mispercing that the above act of transporting fishing nets constitutes the provisions of the Fisheries Act. Therefore, the disposition of this case should be revoked because the disposition of this case is illegal and thus the plaintiff's assertion is reasonable.

We will not further decide on the remainder of the plaintiff's remaining arguments.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be quoted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the disposition of this case shall be revoked, since the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion.