A. Whether it is possible to enforce administrative dispositions

(b) Whether a request for nullification of the registration of extinguishment of a fishery right may become an independent lawsuit

A. A claim for the performance of the procedure for restoring and registering the termination of a fishing right is sought from an administrative agency for the performance of administrative disposition against the administrative agency. As such, a lawsuit seeking an active disposition against the omission of an administrative agency is not allowed under the current Administrative Litigation Act, and there is no special provision that recognizes this in the Fisheries Act, etc., and thus, it cannot be subject to administrative litigation.

B. The claim to nullify the registration of extinguishment of a fishery right is premised on the restoration of the registration of the extinguishment of a fishery right as stipulated in Article 33 of the Decree on Fishery Registration, and the above claim is not subject to the lawsuit separate by being included in the original registration of the extinguishment, and is not subject to the lawsuit, because there is no interest to seek only the invalidity itself if only the restoration registration procedure

Articles 1, 2, and 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 33 of the Decree on Fishery Registration

The Fisheries Cooperatives and the Fisheries Cooperatives and the Fishing Village Federation in Musdo;

Jeonnam-do Governor

The case shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On November 23, 1984, the defendant confirmed that the disposition of extinction on the acceptance of the report on waiver of the same fishery right by the same person in accordance with the attached Form No. 1173-38324 for the fishery right owned by the plaintiff is null and void, and implement the above procedure of reinstatement registration.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

The gist of the facts of the plaintiff's claim is that although the plaintiff did not waive the fishery right of the entry in the purport of claim (No. 3725 on the south of the license number), the non-party 1, who is the personnel in charge of fishing village fraternity office, used the seal attached to apply for the approval of the development of separate fishing ground in its neighboring waters from the non-party 2, who is the head of fishing village fraternity, for the plaintiff's previous fishing village fraternity, without the consent of the plaintiff's abandonment of the fishery right, the above waiver report is null and void because the above waiver of the fishery right did not give up the plaintiff's intention, and the above waiver report is not a waiver of the fishery right. Since the registration of cancellation is invalid, the plaintiff's revocation of the extinguishment registration and the restoration registration procedure is sought by the administrative agency as well as the above rejection of the plaintiff's request under the Administrative Litigation Act without any dispute between the plaintiff's owner of the fishery right and the defendant's claim for the execution of the restoration registration procedure under the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this part of administrative action cannot be accepted.

Next, with respect to the plaintiff's claim to confirm the invalidity of the registration of extinguishment of fishery right, the above claim is based on the premise that the above claim should be registered to restore the registration of extinguishment of fishery right under Article 33 of the Decree on the Registration of Fisheries (i.e., the confirmation of the fact that the ground for the claim for the registration of extinguishment of fishery right is the only claim). This part of the claim cannot be viewed as being subject to a separate lawsuit because the plaintiff's claim cannot be viewed as being included in the claim of extinguishment registration itself as being subject to a separate lawsuit because it can not be viewed as being included in the claim of extinguishment registration. (However, Article 24 (1) of the Fisheries Act provides that the person who obtained the fishery license acquires the fishery right only upon the license of fishery business. Thus, this part of the claim is a right that is established only by the license, and Article 24 (2) of the Fisheries Act provides that the fishery right shall be registered to the fishery right registry, but such a claim shall not be deemed to have been acquired when the plaintiff's fishery right is extinguished due to the expiration of fishery right (i.).

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it appears to be a part of the plaintiff's assertion, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff as the losing party.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Lee Dong-gu (Presiding Judge)