logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 홍성지원 2016.03.31 2015고정340
농어촌정비법위반
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant illegally occupied the agricultural production infrastructure by continuously engaging in a fishing place business without removing a fishing platform, etc., even though a lease contract was terminated at D reservoir, an agricultural production infrastructure located in Chungcheongnam-gun Hong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Hong-gun, from July 16, 2014 to October 23, 2015.

2. The meaning of occupying and using waters of agricultural infrastructure prescribed by the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages should be deemed to mean the so-called special use of waters used for a specific purpose in a tangible and solid manner, apart from the general use of such waters. Whether the occupancy and use of the relevant waters can be deemed as the above special use or as the general use should be determined depending on what is the main purpose and function of the occupancy and use of the relevant waters (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do12529, Nov. 25, 2010; 2002Da68485, Oct. 15, 2004; 90Nu855, Apr. 9, 1991). The evidence duly adopted by the court is acknowledged as follows.

① The Defendant has entered into a lease agreement with the Red Branch of Korea from September 2002, to use the waters of a D reservoir for purposes other than its original purpose, pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on the Prevention of Agricultural and Fishing Villages, with the Red Branch of Korea.

② On January 13, 2010, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Hongsung Branch of the Korea Rural Community Corporation to use D reservoir waters as a place of business for inland fisheries (water-free pay fishing business) from July 16, 2009 to July 15, 2014.

③ By the time the instant lease contract is terminated, the Defendant was frightened to six of the ten water units, i.e., on the water side, and appears to have stayed in the remaining four thousand water units.

arrow