Plaintiff (Attorney Choi Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

may 24, 2005

Jeonju District Court Decision 2002Gahap54 delivered on February 17, 2005

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, with respect to KRW 1,904, 125,873 and KRW 20,517,00 among them, from January 1, 200, 82,912, and KRW 270 from January 1, 2001, for KRW 1,84,664,712 from January 1, 2002, for KRW 1,716,031,891 from March 1, 200 to June 24, 2005, for KRW 5% per annum from March 1, 200 to June 24, 2005, and for KRW 20,517,00 from the next day to the day of full payment, the part of the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed.

3. All of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, while the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,964,337,012 won with 5% per annum from September 1, 1998 to February 17, 2005 (the day of the first instance judgment), and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the plaintiff reduced its claim at the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

A. Plaintiff: The part against the Plaintiff ordering payment under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000 won with 5% per annum from September 1, 1998 to February 17, 2005 (the day of the first instance judgment) and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. Defendant: The first instance judgment is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. (1) Since around 1982, the Plaintiff created a 2,605 square meters of water surface and fish farming facilities with an exclusive use of farmland of 3,352 square meters on the Dogdogri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si, and operated both places. The Plaintiff was granted a license for snick fish farming business with the term of validity until November 9, 2003 pursuant to Article 7(3) of the former Inland Water Fisheries Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6255 of Jan. 28, 2000; hereinafter referred to as the “former Inland Water Development Act”).

(2) In addition, around November 1995, the Plaintiff installed 2,178 square meters of fish farming facilities on the Dogdong-ri 943-4 farmland 3,299 square meters adjacent to the farmland in the above paragraph (a) and around that time, the Plaintiff completed a report on sneep fish farming business (three years of validity) pursuant to Article 9 of the former Inland Water Act, and completed the report again on November 11, 1998 (the effective period until November 10, 2001).

(3) On August 13, 1998, the Korea National Land Management Agency under the Defendant’s control started sexual ethics-long road expansion and packing construction work, which led to the west-si from the west-si of Kim Jong-si to the west-si of Gunsan among the National Road No. 29 on August 13, 1998.

(4) On July 12, 1999, a lot construction company and Sam River Construction Co-Defendant in the first instance trial, who are responsible for the execution of the said construction, started construction work of a construction section (13.264 km and 13.5 km, Glag) adjacent to the above Yang Mann-si. The shortest distance between the above Yang Mann-si and the above construction site is 145 meters.

(5) However, near the above two places including the above section, the ground was weak due to the connection between reclaimed land, and the defendant and the above construction contractor tried to improve the above section by using the SCP method.

(6) The above method of construction removes the part of the ground by inserting sand into the ground by using an anti-port gear and inserting sand into the ground through the following files so that the water portion under the ground can be laid out and flow out. In addition, noise and vibration occurred in the process that the above construction work sets up a file on the ground and injects sand into the ground. Moreover, sand necessary for it was collected from the sea and then used as it is without removing salt, and the salt portion was released under the surrounding land.

(7) The degree of noise measured at a point 150 meters in the above construction site is 70.7dB(A), 62dB(A), 63dB(A), 61.2dB(V), 60.5dB(V), 65.4dB(V) at the time of sandrain work, sandrain work at the time of sandrain work, 55.4dB(V) at the time of sandrain work, compared to the case of sandrain work, noise is a maximum of 70% and 49%, and vibration is increased by 58% and 43%.

(8) On the other hand, the water quality of groundwater drawn in the above nives was determined to be adequate to the snives pattern before commencing the above construction. After commencing the construction, it was found that it was inappropriate for the snives pattern because the concentration of table, longitude, snives, salt, salt, etc. is higher than the standard value in the nearest point in the construction site.

(9) From around July 1999, there continuously occurred abnormal phenomena such as waste death or bad drinking, and growth of snive snives snives from October of the same year, such an abnormal phenomenon occurred as snives, snives, and snives, which were raised in the above snivers, and around March 200 and March 2001, which occurred to snive snives snives that were newly discovered in around March 200.

(10) Therefore, in the above two places, there was a situation in which the water quality of groundwater drawn up from the above places could not be cultivated until the water quality is improved, and there was a survey that the water quality will be 26 years or more as of September 9, 2002 when the water quality is restored to the original state.

(11) On the other hand, on November 1, 1999, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to establish measures by asserting that snicken snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick sn

[Ground of Fact-finding] Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 3-1 through 6, Evidence No. 16 (Evidence No. 16 refers to part thereof), Evidence No. 17-1 through 37, Evidence No. 17-1 through 19 (Evidence No. 6 is part thereof), Evidence No. 25, Evidence No. 3, Testimony No. 19, Testimony testimony and video of the first instance court, Results of on-site verification by the court of first instance, results of the on-site verification by the court of the first instance, results of the appraisal commission to the head of the Bupyeong-Gyeong University Joint Research Institute of Marine Science, the results of the supplementary appraisal entrustment, results of each fact-finding, the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole.

B. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff is first liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick sn

Furthermore, even if the execution of the above construction is completed due to the above reasons, the plaintiff suffered losses which could not cultivate snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick

However, Article 23(3) of the Constitution provides that, even if an agreement is not reached between the victim and the project implementer with respect to indirect losses on the land outside the project area due to the implementation of a public project and there is no express legal basis for the compensation, Article 23(3) of the Constitution provides that "the expropriation, use or restriction of property rights necessary for the public project and the compensation therefor shall be provided by an Act, but reasonable compensation shall be provided." Accordingly, the act of infringing property rights of the people must be based on a formal law, and the act of infringing on property rights of the people must be provided by the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by February 4, 2002) and the compensation provision for losses arising therefrom, Article 3(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act (amended by the Act No. 688, Dec. 31, 2002) provides that "where the land owner suffered losses due to the acquisition or use of land, etc. for the public project, etc. for the purpose of compensation, it shall be easily interpreted that the above special provision on the compensation provision on the ground of the public project should be applied by analogy.

In addition, if the executor of a public project obligated to compensate for the damages does not compensate for the damages and actually and practically infringe on the public project, it shall constitute a tort. Therefore, the defendant is obliged to compensate the plaintiff for the damages.

C. However, according to the above facts, the plaintiff should be deemed to have been aware of the fact that the snick light was abandoned due to the above construction around November 1999, and even if not taking appropriate measures, he re-snick light on March 2, 200 and March 2001. The plaintiff's mistake also caused the occurrence and expansion of the damage caused by the snick light, so the defendant's responsibility is limited to 70% of the total amount for the 2000 years and to 40% of the total amount for the 2001 portion.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Criteria for calculating damages;

(1) The amount of damages caused by waste of snnish snick species

It is the amount calculated by adding the difference between the normal selling price of the snick light and the reduced selling price of the snick light that should be sold at low prices before reaching the snick light market price after the construction started.

(2) Damages arising from the limitation of fishery right

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff argued that the above fish farming business was licensed or reported in accordance with the former Inland Water Act, and Article 16 of the above Act provides that the Fisheries Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to matters not specifically provided for in the above Act, and Article 6 (2) and (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Special Act also provides that the evaluation of fishing losses of a person holding a license or reported fishery outside a public project implementation zone shall comply with the provisions of Article 62 and attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act. Thus, the amount of damages arising from the restriction on the above fish farming business shall be calculated in accordance with Article 62 and attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act as to the portion of licensed fish business (if the fishing right is revoked or the extension of fishing right is not permitted) or (b) (if the fishing right is suspended), the portion of reported fish business shall be calculated in accordance with item (a) or (b)

(B) Determination

Article 3-2(1) of the former Inland Water Act provides that inland waters, other than public waters, shall not be subject to the above Act unless otherwise specifically provided. As recognized earlier, the above Yang Many Man is established on private waters, and part of which is licensed to engage in aquaculture and the report of aquaculture has been completed. As such, it shall be divided into licensed fishery and reported fishery.

(1) Duties of licensed fisheries

Article 7 (3) of the above Act provides that "a person who operates a fish farming business with facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree in a certain private water surface may obtain a license under paragraph (1) 1 (a)" and Article 11 (1) of the above Act provides that "a person who has obtained a license for fishery business pursuant to the provisions of Article 7 shall obtain a fishery right at the time he/she obtains a license" and Article 20 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act provides that "a person who is eligible to apply for a license under the provisions of Article 7 (3) of the Act shall own the facilities meeting the standards of the attached Table 1" and the part concerning the fish delivery in the attached Table 1 provides that "at the only place: at least 2,300 square meters of a fish farm; a facility; a place of raising, a fish shed, a water tank, a power-driven facility, a power-driven facility, a equipment, etc.; a person who has obtained a license for fishery business in a private water surface shall be subject to strict restrictions as above on a license for fishery business in accordance with the above provisions of Article 1 of the above Act."

However, in accordance with the above relevant provisions, the Plaintiff obtained a license for the 2,605 square meters of the above fish farm, and Article 22 of the Inland Water Fisheries Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6255 of Jan. 28, 2000) (Article 16 of the former Inland Water Act) provides that “Except as otherwise provided for in this Act, the relevant provisions of the Fisheries Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to a person who has obtained a license for fish farming in private waters pursuant to Article 7(3) of the former Inland Water Development Promotion Act at the time this Act enters into force.”

Therefore, with respect to the Plaintiff’s above licensed fishery, the provisions related to compensation under the Fisheries Act shall apply mutatis mutandis in accordance with the former Inland Water Act and the Inland Water Fisheries Act. Meanwhile, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the above licensed fishery constitutes a case where the fishery right is suspended. Therefore, the amount of damages due to the restriction on the above licensed fishery shall be calculated in accordance with Article 62 and attached Table 4 Section 1(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act.

Furthermore, according to the facts of recognition of the above Paragraph 1, since from March 200, it was practically impossible to cultivate snick in the above aquaculture from around March 2000, the period of suspension of the above licensed fishery is three years and eight months from November 9, 2003, when the term of validity of the above license expires.

(2) Reported fishery portion

Since the former Inland Water Act or the Inland Water Fisheries Act shall not apply to a reported fishery on private waters unless there are special provisions such as licensed fishery, the compensation provisions of the Fisheries Act shall not apply mutatis mutandis.

In addition, Article 23 (4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on the Law of Public Use is that the degree of damage to the fishery outside the public project implementation zone shall be calculated on the basis of the amount of annual income under Article 62 and attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act, and it shall not be interpreted that the degree of damage is calculated by directly applying item (a) or (b) of subparagraph 1 of attached Table 4 of the same Table, such as the fishery in the public project implementation zone.

Therefore, the amount of damages resulting from the restriction of the above reported fishery business shall be calculated in accordance with Article 24 (Appraisal of Loss Resulting from Discontinuance of Business) or Article 25 (Appraisal of Loss resulting from Discontinuance of Business) rather than Article 23 (Appraisal of Fishery Right) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Special Act, but there is no evidence to prove that the restriction of the reported fishery business constitutes a case of discontinuance of business under Article 24 (2) Item 2 of the above Rule, and therefore, the amount of damages resulting from discontinuance of business cannot be considered as the basis for the calculation of the above amount of damages, and ultimately, it is reasonable to consider the amount of damages resulting from suspension of business under Article 25 of the above Rule as the basis

Furthermore, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence 20, it is recognized that the two-year period of time has been required for the selection of lots, purchase of lots, design, installation of facilities, preparation of entry, etc. before the above aquaculture.

(C) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the amount of damages caused by the restriction on the fishery right of the above quantity is calculated in accordance with the following formula:

(1) Part 3: a week 4) x suspension period (3 years and 8 months) ＋ loss incurred in the transfer, collection, etc. of facilities, etc. or cultivated products + Ordinary fixed expenses incurred during the suspension period of fisheries.

(2) Five (5) parts per week for reported fishery business: x suspension (2 years) of annual earnings x fixed expenses, such as personnel expenses during the suspension period ＋ An amount equivalent to the reduction of losses incurred in the transfer of business facilities, raw materials, products, commodities, and other goods, etc.

B. Calculation of damages

(1) The amount of damages caused by waste of snnish snick species

(A) Basics

(1) Annual waste death levels.

· 199: 21,769 US

· 200: 125,667 US

· 201: 101,564 US

(2) The ratio of sale at a low price and price reduction: the sale at a lower price of 205,000 won than the market price of 60% (to be presumed sale at a price of 201).

(3) Natural discarded death rate: 3%.

(4) The composition ratio of each body and the market value (the highest protection shall be inside) of each body.

· 5-10 pc. 17.9% (1,400 won)

· 10-30 p.m. 35.7% (1,100 won)

· 30-50 p.m. 25% (800 won)

· 50-100 pc. 21.4% (600 won)

【Grounds for Recognition of Facts】 Entry of Evidence A No. 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

(b)Calculation;

(1) Waste death portion in 199: Total of 20,517,000 won.

· 5-10 US/ kilograms: 3,779 US$ 21,115 USx 0.179) x 1,400 = 5,290,600 won

· 10-30 p.m.: 7,538 M. (21,115 U.S.x 0.357)x 1,100 won = 8,291,800 won

· 30-50 p.m.: 5,279 US (21,115 USx 0.25) x 800 won = 4,223,200 won

· 50-100 p.m. 4,519 US (21,115 USx 0.214)x 600 won = 2,7711,400 won

(2) Waste death portion in 200: Total of 118,446,100 won.

· 5-10 cubic x 1,400 won = 30,546,600 won x 21,819 US ( Note 8) 121,896 USx 0.179)

· 10-30 p.m.: 43,517 US (121,896 USx 0.357)x 1,100 = 47,868,700 won

· 30-50 p.m. 30,474 US (121,896 USx 0.25) x 800 won = 24,379,200 won

· 50-100 US/cc: 26,086 US (121,896 USx 0.214)x 600 won = 15,651,600 won

(3) Waste death portion in 2001: Total of 95,728,400 won.

· 5-10 US/ kilograms: 17,634 US ( Note 9) 98,517 USx 0.179) x 1,400 US = 24,687,600

· 10-30 p.m.: 35,170 M. (98,517 U.S.x 0.357)x 1,100 won = 38,687,00 won

· 30-50 p.m.: 24,630 M. (98,517 U.S.x 0.25) x 800 won = 19,704,00 won

· 50-100 p.m.: 21,083 US (98,517 USx 0.214)x 600 won = 12,649,800 won

(4) Loss incurred by sale at low price: Total of 115,933,380 won.

· 5-10 cubic x 0.6 = 29,898,960 won, 35,594 US 198,850 US x 0.179) x 1,400 x 0.6

· 10-30 p.m.: 70,989 US (198,850 USx 0.357)x 1,100 won = 46,852,740 won

· 30-50 p.m.: 49,713 US (198,850 USx 0.25)x 0.6 = 23,862,240 won

· 50-100 US/cc. 42,54 US (198,850 USx 0.214)x 600 won = 15,319,440 won

(C) Limitation of liability

(1) For the year 200: 82,912,270 won (118,446,100 wonx0.7)

(2) For losses from the sale of end-of-life and low-price in 2001: 84,664,712 [(95,728,400 won + 115,93,380 won)]x0.4

(d) Total amount: 188,093,982 won (20,517,00 won + 82,912,270 won + 84,664,712 won);

(2) Damages arising from the limitation of fishery right

(A) Basics

(1) The amount of production for the last three years of the total quantity of the above 11)

· 196: 890,025 US

· 197: 726,412 US

· 759,117 US (413,441 US + reported fishery 345,676 US)

(2) Natural discarded death rate: 3%.

(3) Average annual sales unit price: 1,270 won per kilogram.

④ The annual fishery expenses of the entire heads of the above two thousands: 660,698,00 won

(5) Annual fixed costs for the commerce of all the above entirely: 95,580,926 won in total.

· Personnel Expenses: 10,019,200 won (which is recognized as being managed by one person)

· Depreciation costs: 51,924,076

· Facilities maintenance and management expenses: 33,637,650 won

6. Ordinary expenses incurred in transferring business facilities, raw materials, products, goods, etc. of the whole quantity of the above quantity: 522,810,900 won

* The Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 208,200,00 as the cost of the relocation of the above facilities, and the cost of the relocation of the facilities, but the amount of damages incurred from the relocation of the business cannot exceed the amount of damages incurred due to the closure of the business. Under the present situation, the amount of damages incurred from the sale of the above facilities en bloc cannot exceed KRW 522,810,90,00. Thus, it is reasonable to regard the sum of the cost of the relocation, etc. as KRW 522,810,90,00.

[Ground of Fact-finding] Part of Gap evidence No. 16, Gap evidence No. 20, each part of Gap evidence No. 16, the result of the commission of appraisal to the chief of the Korea Institute for Marine Science at the Busan National University, the result of the commission of complementary appraisal, the results of each fact-finding, each part of the results of the expert

(b)Calculation;

(1) Average annual production amount.

1. Licensed Fisheries Part

- - 1996 : (890,025 x 12)x [13 2,605 m2,605 m2,608 m2,170 m2] = 470,198 m2]

- - 1997: (726,412 US x 0.97)x [2,605 square meters/(2,605 square meters + 2,178 square meters)] = 383,762

· 413,441 US x0.97 = 401,037 US 401

·Annual average production: 418,32 US [470,198 US + 383,762 US + 401,037 US/3}

2.The reported portion

- - 1996 : (890,025 x 14 0.97 x)x [15 2,178 m2,178 m2] / (2,605 m2,605 m2,178 m2)] = 393,125 m2

- - 1997: (726,412 US x 0.97)x [2,178 square meters/(2,605 square meters + 2,178 square meters)] = 320,857 US

· 345,676 US x0.97 = 335,305 US 345,305 US

·Annual average production: 349,762 US [(393,125 US + 320,857 US + 335,305 US)/3}

(2) Average annual sales.

1. Part for licensed fishery: 531,281,640 won (418,332 USx 1,270 won);

2. Reported fishery portion: 444,197,740 won (349,762 USx 1,270 won)

(3) Average annual fisheries expenses.

(a) Licensed fishery portion: 359,840,746 won (660,698,00 won x 2,605 square meters/(2,605 square meters + 2,178 square meters));

2. Reported fishery portion: 300,857,253 won (660,698,00 wonx2,178 square meters/(2,605 square meters + 2,178 square meters));

(4) Average annual revenues.

(a) Licensed fishery: 171,440,894 won (531,281,640 won - 359,840,746 won);

2. Reported fishery portion: 143,340,487 won (44,197,740 won - 300,857,253 won)

(5) Profits during the period of suspension or suspension of business.

1. Part for licensed fishery: 628,616,611 won (171,440,894 won x 3 years and 8 months);

2. Reported fishery portion: 286,680,974 won (143,340,487 Won x2 years)

(6) Fixed expenses during the period of suspension or suspension of business.

(a) Licensed fishery portion: 190,875,421 won ( KRW 95,580,926 won x 2,605 square meters/ [2,605 square meters + 2,178 square meters) x 3 years and 8 months];

2. Reported fishery portion: 87,047,985 won [95,580,926 wonx 2,178 square meters/(2,605 square meters + 2,178 square meters)].

(7) Aggregate: 1,716,031,891 won (819,492,032 won + 373,728,959 won + 522,810,900 won)

(a) Profits and fixed costs during the period of suspending the portion of licensed fishery business: 819,492,032 won (628,616,611 + 190,875,421 won);

2. Profits and fixed costs during the suspension period of reported business: 373,728,959 won (286,680,974 won + 87,047,985 won).

3. Expenses, etc. for the transfer of the whole quantity of delivery: 522,810,900 won;

(c) Total amount of damages;

1,904,125,873 Won (188,093,982 Won 188,092 + Amount of damages due to restrictions on fishery rights 1,716,031,891 Won)

3. Conclusion

Therefore, with respect to 1,904,125,873 won and 20,517,000 won among them (the amount of damages caused by 1999 snives death), the Defendant shall revoke the Plaintiff’s claim for damages from January 1, 200 (the day after the end of 1999 snives death), 82,912,270 won (the amount of damages caused by snives death of 2000) from January 1, 201 to 84,664,712 won (the amount of damages caused by snives death of 201) (the amount of damages caused by sale of snives death of 201) and 20,517,00 won (the amount of damages caused by snives death of snives death of 199) to the Plaintiff, and the remaining damages caused by the Defendant’s claim for damages from 2000% to 25% of the judgment below shall be dismissed.

Judges Hase-Do et al. (Presiding Judge)

1) The defendant asserts that the waste death of snick light due to the water pollution of the above groundwater is unrelated to the execution of the above construction. However, in a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages as in this case, since there are fields that cannot be clarified at the present scientific level, it is difficult or impossible to prove all of the causations between the harmful act and the damage, and thus, the victim's request for strict scientific certification as to the existence of the factual causation can be a result of refusal of judicial relief. Thus, if there is a harmful material, and if the cause is caused by the damage, if the cause is attributable to the damaged object, it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator cannot be exempted from liability unless the perpetrator proves that the damage was caused by the occurrence of the damage. As seen in the above facts, as seen above, since the plaintiff was cultivated normally in the above quantity before the commencement of the construction, but the defendant was using sand from the snick sea where the vibration was generated while the above construction work was done, and it seems that there was a high concentration of waste dust between the above plant and the above growth level.

(2) The discontinuance of the business pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) refers to the cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs: 1. The transfer of the business place or its hinterland to another place within the Si (referring to the Si in which no Gu is established; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gun or Gu area where the business place is located or adjacent is located due to the peculiarity of the business place or its hinterland; 2. Where it is impossible to obtain the business permission from other places within the Si/Gun/Gu area where the business place is located or adjacent; 3. Where the head of a Si/Gun/Gu recognizes that it is considerably difficult to transfer the business place to other places within the Si/Gun/Gu area where the business place is located or adjacent to the former area where the business place is located;

3) Article 62 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act and Table 4 Ⅰ.1.b.

4) An average annual fishing cost (average annual fishing cost) - An average annual fishing cost (total annual fishing cost, depreciation cost, facility maintenance cost, seeds and seedlings management cost, feed cost, animal feed treatment cost, public charges, and miscellaneous cost) (Ⅱ in attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act).

5) Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Special Act

Note 6) In light of the fact that the above rule provides “business profits”, and this is calculated by the arithmetic mean of the operating profits for the last three years (Article 24(3) of the above Rule), it is unreasonable to regard this case as the same meaning as the amount of the ordinary annual income as prescribed in Table 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act.

Note 7) 21,769 USx 0.97 (except for natural death rate of 3%)

Note 8) 125,67 USx 0.97 (excluding natural death rate of 3%)

Note 9) 101,564 USx 0.97 (excluding natural death rate of 3%)

Note 10) 205,00 USx 0.97 (excluding natural death rate of 3%)

11) Average catch for the preceding three years means an average catch for the preceding three years. The catch for the preceding three years is for three years calculated retroactively (in cases of a fish farming business, the average catch for the preceding three years means 1.5 times compared to the preceding year or in cases where it is unreasonable to calculate an average catch for three years including the pertinent year due to a temporary change in the marine environment for three years calculated, due to suspension of business or maintenance of fishing grounds, referring to the amount of three years calculated retroactively as shown in Table 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act). However, it is not adequate to calculate an average catch for the preceding three years. In such a case, the average catch for the preceding three years is for 7 years calculated based on the application of fisheries production for nearby same kind of fishery business, evaluation and interpretation of fisheries performance, 7 years calculated based on the average quantity of seeds and seedlings, 97 years calculated based on the average quantity of 97 years calculated based on the annual average quantity of production, 97 years calculated based on the annual average quantity of production during the preceding three years.

Note 12) 3% of natural death rate

Note 13) Facility size of licensed fishing part

Note 14) 3% of natural death rate

15) Facility size of reported portion

16) Even if a project executor, who is liable to compensate for losses to a person holding a fishery right, did not perform his/her duty and performed the construction work, such tort is not established only by the commencement of the project, but only by the occurrence of a practical and realistic infringement. Specifically, it shall be deemed that the fishery right holder caused damage to a fishing ground to be lost, and thus, it shall be ordered to pay damages for delay as to the amount of damages from that time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da32162, May 14, 2004).