Mag Port 2 Ri fishing Village fraternity (Attorneys Kim Young-pon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seosan Fisheries Cooperatives

Mag Port Fishing Village (Attorney Clinical LLC, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

October 13, 2006

Daejeon District Court Decision 2003Gahap959, 1198 (Independent Party Intervention) Decided June 2, 2005

1. The part against the plaintiff and the independent party intervenor in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant, shall be revoked, and the claim against the plaintiff and the independent party intervenor corresponding to that part shall be dismissed, respectively;

2. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant and the incidental appeal against the defendant by the independent party intervenor are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the total costs of the lawsuit, the part arising from the principal lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the part arising from the intervention by an independent party intervenor, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

A. The principal lawsuit: The defendant shall execute the registration procedure for transfer of each fishery right listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff.

B. Independent party participation: The defendant shall perform the procedure for registration of transfer with respect to each fishery right listed in the separate sheet to the independent party intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the "participating"). The plaintiff confirms that each fishery right listed in the separate sheet is owned by the intervenor.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall dismiss the plaintiff's claim. The defendant shall implement the registration procedure for transfer with respect to one half of the fishery rights listed in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter referred to as "fishery rights of this case").

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the intervenor shall be revoked. The defendant shall perform the procedure for the registration of transfer of one-half of the fishery rights of this case to the intervenor (the first instance dismissed the intervenor's claim for the confirmation of ownership of the fishery rights of this case among each of the claims, and partly accepted the claim for the registration of transfer of fishery rights. Since the intervenor appealed only to the part of the claim for the registration of transfer of fishery rights, the part of the claim for the registration

1. Basic facts

(a) Circumstances in which the Plaintiff and the Intervenor of the fishing village fraternity were established;

In the end of the 1970s, fishermen living in the 1970s who were originally affiliated with the mother-port fishing village fraternity (hereinafter “former mother-owned fishing village fraternity”) and were separately affiliated with the mother-owned fishing village fraternity (hereinafter “former mother-owned fishing village fraternity”). At the end of the 1970s, fishermen were separately affiliated with the mother-owned fishing village fraternity (hereinafter “former mother-owned fishing village fraternity”) and were separated from the mother-owned fishing village fraternity. After that, on December 29, 1979, all fishing village fraternities located in the 199s, including the former mother-owned fishing village fraternity and the former mother-owned fishing village fraternity, were established in the course of the merger of all fishing village fraternities located in the 202s, but the fishing village fraternity was dissolved. On August 13, 2002, the Intervenor was established in the 2013rd-gun fishing village fraternity as the 130th 16th 201.

B. Establishment of the fishery right of this case, location of fishing ground, current status of use, etc.

(1) On July 22, 1982, a fishing village fraternity incorporated in the Republic of Korea acquired a license for fishery right No. 314, which is the telegraph of the instant fishery right, with respect to Class 1 of the instant fishery right, which is the joint fishing village fraternity located in the area where the main fishing village fraternity in Taean-gun was located. The Defendant completed the registration of succession to the instant fishery right on May 10, 202 upon the dissolution of the fishing village fraternity that is the main fishing village fraternity. Thereafter, the period of validity of the fishery license expires on July 22, 2002, and the Defendant obtained a license as the 65 again on October 30, 2002, and owned the instant fishery right.

(2) The fishing ground subject to the instant fishing right is located in the sea located in the port of mother port 2 km, but the actual residents reside in a place less than 1-2 km away from the mountain land due to the mountain geographical features that do not have to be authorized. In addition, the residents of the mother port 1-2 km living in the port in substitution, and the residents of the mother port 1-2 km away from the port. In fact, the fishery activities were conducted in the middle of the mother port 1-2 km.

(3) Meanwhile, around November 2004, the Defendant concluded a contract to exercise the fishery right so that the said corporation may conduct fishery activities within the fishing ground subject to the fishery right of this case for one year between the corporation of the mother seagoing business comprised of the women residing in one district of the mother sea harbor and two districts.

C. Defendant’s resolution to transfer the fishery right

(1) On November 27, 2002, the Defendant held a 4th interim council of delegates and passed a resolution to transfer 22 of all the instant fishing rights and the fishery rights succeeded from the fishing village fraternity that is a party to a lawsuit, without compensation, to the fishing village fraternity that is to be established in an area adjacent to each fishery right’s waters (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

The Defendant, based on the above resolution, formulated a transfer disposition plan for fishery rights, and the content was to be transferred after the settlement of the dispute between fishing village fraternities, in case where the jurisdiction of fishing village fraternities is unclear or there is a dispute between fishing village fraternities that have an interest in fishery rights, and then the transfer was made after receiving the cost of acquiring fishery rights subject to transfer.

(2) After that, the Defendant transferred most of the above 22 fishing rights to each of the fishing village fraternities, and transferred the fishery rights to each of the relevant fishing village fraternities upon consultation about three of the three fishing rights, including Nos. 132, 48, and 51, for which the agreement was reached among the fishing rights for which the request for transfer was made by the fishing village fraternities.

(3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor asserted that each fishery right listed in the separate sheet is the party to whom it belongs, and demanded the Defendant to transfer the right. The Plaintiff and the Intervenor held 1.8 Mari-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-party 1.2 out of 3 Mari-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Byung's evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including paper numbers), non-party 1's testimony by non-party 2 and non-party 3's testimony by the witness of the trial court, non-party 2 and non-party 3's testimony by each document, the result of on-site inspection by the court of first instance, and the result of fact inquiry by the court of first instance and the head of Si/Gun

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the fishing ground subject to the fishery right of this case is located on a branch line of 2 mother-ri ports, the legitimate owner of the fishery right of this case is the plaintiff. The defendant expressed his intention to transfer the fishery right of this case to the legitimate owner to whom the fishery right of this case belongs by the resolution of this case and expressed his intention to accept it. As such, a donation contract on the fishery right of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant was concluded. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for the registration of transfer as to the fishery right of this case to the plaintiff

B. Intervenor’s assertion

The fishery right of this case was held by the Plaintiff’s mother port fishing village fraternity, which is a telegraph of the Intervenor, and the Defendant intended to return the fishery right succeeded from the Plaintiff, to the original relative. The resolution of this case was made by the Intervenor, which requested transfer of the fishery right of this case to the Defendant, and thus, the agreement was concluded between the Intervenor and the Defendant regarding the fishery right of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable for the registration of transfer as to the fishery right of this case to the Intervenor, as it is a party to the

(c) Markets:

The Plaintiff and the Intervenor asserted that, on the premise that the resolution of this case was an expression of intent to subscribe to the gift contract, the agreement on the fishery right of this case was concluded between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, or the Intervenor and the Defendant by expressing their intent to consent.

However, the resolution of this case is merely an internal decision-making with regard to the disposition of the fishery right held by the defendant and cannot be deemed an offer. In addition, since the offer, which is a legal requirement for the formation of the contract, is a specific and conclusive declaration that accepts it, it is necessary to include matters to the extent that the contents of the contract can be determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53059, Apr. 11, 2003, etc.). The resolution of this case is intended to transfer the fishery right according to the agreement when there is a dispute between interested parties as to the subject to the ownership of the fishery right, and it cannot be deemed that the other party or object (the share ratio if the fishery right is transferred to the joint ownership) is not determined (the defendant has a legitimate interest in the fishery right of this case before and after the lawsuit of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the agreement between the plaintiff and the intervenor or the defendant's subscription to the fishery right of this case cannot be seen as a joint ownership of the fishery right of this case.

Therefore, since the donation contract on the fishery right of this case between the plaintiff, the defendant, or the defendant cannot be deemed to have been concluded, the plaintiff and the intervenor's claim against the defendant under such premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff and the intervenor's claims against the defendant against the plaintiff and the intervenor shall be dismissed for each reason. Since the part against the defendant as to the plaintiff and the intervenor's claims against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair for each reason, it shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendant and the intervenor's incidental appeals against the defendant as well as the defendant's incidental appeals against the defendant shall be dismissed for each reason. It is so decided as per Disposition (the plaintiff does not explicitly state that "the plaintiff's claims are dismissed" in the purport of the incidental appeal, but it does not include "the plaintiff's claims are dismissed" in the purport of the incidental appeal, but since the plaintiff's whole claim against the plaintiff and the defendant raised an incidental appeal against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the part against the plaintiff and the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff and the intervenor did not appeal against the part in favor of the other party in the judgment of first instance, but there is no room to apply the principle of prohibition of

[Attachment]

Judges Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Judge)