Whether a person who has obtained a license for reclamation of public waters has a reason under Article 25 (1) 2 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act and there is no measure of the competent Minister under the proviso of paragraph (1) of the same Act, the person who has obtained the license

If a reclamation license loses its effect after the lapse of the construction completion period, as long as the competent Minister did not reinstate the effect retroactively within three months, the cancellation disposition is revoked, there is no room for receiving extension of the construction completion period under Article 10 (2) of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, and there is no benefit to maintain the cancellation request.

Articles 25 and 10 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act

E.I.D.

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Seoul High Court Decision 63Gu248 delivered on February 23, 1965

We reverse the original judgment.

The plaintiff's main lawsuit is dismissed.

The total cost of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Since it is a matter of litigation requirements ex officio, the court below held that the plaintiff had no interest in seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case, as long as the plaintiff had already obtained the permission for extension of the completion period of this case and the plaintiff did not take a separate measure against the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff's claim that the extension of the completion period of this case was permitted by December 31, 1963 and did not take a separate measure after the expiration of the above period, although there is no dispute between the parties, the competent Minister can allow the extension of the completion period according to the request of the licensee under Article 10 (2) of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, since the cancellation of the disposition of this case is revoked, and the plaintiff has no interest in obtaining the extension of the completion period again under the above Article 10 (2) of the Public Waters Reclamation Act merely because the above completion period has expired due to the fact that there exists a legal interest in obtaining the extension of the completion period again under the above Act.

However, if the plaintiff obtained permission to extend the completion period until December 31, 1963 and did not take a separate measure after the expiration of the construction completion period, the reclamation license to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 25 (1) 2 and Article 10 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act shall lose its effect, and it is evident that the competent Minister did not take a measure to restore the effect retroactively to the plaintiff within 3 months in accordance with the process under the proviso of Article 25 (1) of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, even if the cancellation disposition of this case is revoked, the plaintiff does not have any possibility to obtain an extension by filing an application for the extension of completion period pursuant to Article 10 (2) of the above Reclamation Act, and therefore, even though it is obvious that the plaintiff's profit to maintain the claim of this case has ceased to exist, the original judgment shall be reversed and it shall be dismissed on the ground that there was no profit to maintain the plaintiff's lawsuit for this reason.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with the grounds above and the principle of losing the costs of lawsuit.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu