The case holding that since the Inland Water Fisheries Act shall apply to fishing activities in a fishing zone designated as a local second-class river area and the Fisheries Act shall not apply, the competent administrative agency's refusal to accept a report on the first hand fishing in the above fishing zone is lawful.

Subparagraph 9 of Article 2 of the former Fisheries Act (Amended by Act No. 7314, Dec. 31, 2004; see current Article 2 Subparagraph 17); Article 44 (see current Article 46); Article 2 Subparagraph 1 of the Inland Water Fisheries Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Thai, Attorneys Han Han-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Mineyang Market (Law Firm Rocom, Attorney Yang Dong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2006Nu1745 decided July 26, 2007

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed by their agents).

1. As to the disposition dated April 14, 2005

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence duly examined and adopted, and found that Article 44 subparag. 3 of the former Harbor Act (amended by Act No. 7571 of May 31, 2005) and Article 31 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19174 of Dec. 9, 2005) prohibit the gathering and cultivating of fishery products in a harbor. However, the court below acknowledged the following dispositions as lawful: (a) since the mining sea level was designated as a designated port (trade port) where the plaintiffs applied for the first hand fishing zone as of April 8, 2005, since the mining sea level was designated as a designated port (trade port) where the plaintiffs refused to accept the above first hand fishing report.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant statutes and the records, we affirm the lower court’s fact-finding and judgment as justifiable.

The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 44 of the former Harbor Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. As to each disposition dated June 3, 2005 and June 10, 2005

Article 3 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 7314 of Dec. 31, 2004) provides that the Fisheries Act shall apply to the sea, seasides, and the surface of land artificially created for the purpose of fisheries; Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the same Act provides that the definition of seasides shall be between the sea and the sea level of land registered in the cadastral record, and Articles 2 and 5 of the Cadastral Act shall be divided into the types of land on which the river is to be registered in the cadastral record, and Article 7 of the River Act shall be designated and publicly notified by the head of the relevant agency; Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the same Act provides that the definitions of inland water fisheries shall be applied to the inland water fisheries area designated by the head of the relevant agency; Article 3 of the same Act shall be excluded from the scope of inland water fisheries area; and Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the same Act provides that the same shall apply to the inland water fisheries area designated by the head of the relevant agency, other than the inland Water Fisheries Act.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the records, since it is clear that a river falls under inland waters pursuant to Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Inland Water Fisheries Act, the Inland Water Fisheries Act shall apply to fishing activities in the instant fishing zone designated as a local second-class river area, and on the other hand, the decision of the court below that the instant fishing zone designated as a local second-class river area shall not be deemed to fall under a beach located between the sea-class water level line and the land boundary line registered in the cadastral record under Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 7314, Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter the " Fisheries Act"), and therefore, it shall not be subject to the Fisheries Act, and the Fisheries Act shall not be applied to fishing activities in the instant fishing zone. Accordingly, the court below's decision that the lower court's rejection of acceptance is somewhat inappropriate in its reasoning, such as the judgment that there is a special law with respect to the Fisheries Act, but it is also difficult to view the lower court's rejection of acceptance as justifiable.

The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of application and equality of the Fisheries Act and the Inland Water Fisheries Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)