Whether the act of maintaining the fishing ground as it is between the revocation of the fishery license and the subsequent disposition after the conclusion of the agreement between Defendant A and Defendant B, who had obtained a fishery license and the fishing ground facilities, to bear the cost of restoring or expanding the fishing ground facilities, constitutes the act of leasing the fishery right or unlicensed fishery business without the license (negative)

In a case where the fishery license was revoked while Defendant A obtained a fishery license and entered into an agreement with Defendant B on the same business with Defendant B to restore or expand fishing ground facilities at Defendant B’s expense, but the judgment revoking the revocation of the license becomes final and conclusive after Defendant A filed an administrative litigation, the transaction between the Defendants is not the lease of the fishery right, but the act maintaining the fishing ground as it is until the revocation of the license by deeming that the disposition is not a non-licensed fishery business.

Articles 8(1), 28, 89 subparag. 1, and 90 subparag. 2 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990), Article 30 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Each Prosecutor

Cheongju District Court Decision 90No405 delivered on January 10, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the fact that Defendant 1 obtained a fishery license from the Cheongbuk-do Governor on May 1987 and entered into an agreement with Defendant 2 on the same business with Defendant 2 to cultivate fish by restoring or expanding fishing ground facilities at the expense of Defendant 2, and that the fishery license was revoked on September 16, 1989, but Defendant 1 obtained the decision of suspending the provisional disposition on December 14, 1989 and obtained the decision of revoking the cancellation of the license on August 22, 1990, and recognized the fact that the decision became final and conclusive on August 22, 1990, that the transaction between Defendant 1 and 2 did not lease the fishery right, but did not be punished by deeming the act maintaining fishing ground as an unauthorized fishery business until the disposition is revoked, and considering the reasoning reasoning reasoning of the judgment below compared, the court below's determination of evidence and fact finding is reasonable, and it cannot be accepted as a final appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)