208Da65204 Agreements

As shown in the attached list of plaintiffs.

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 et al.

E.S.S.

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff Law Firm

[Defendant-Appellee]

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff Law Firm

[Defendant-Appellee]

Korea

The legal representative Kim Minister of Justice

Litigation Performers Kim, Kim, Heads, Han, White

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Gangnam-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 20064104398 Decided July 31, 2008

January 30, 2009

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).

1. As to the assertion on the interpretation of a disposal document, so long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent in accordance with the language stated in the disposal document unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence as to the denial of the contents of the statement. In a case where there is any difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a contract and the interpretation of the intent of the parties expressed in the disposal document is at issue, the court shall reasonably interpret it in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and circumstance of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent (see Supreme Court Decisions 200Da48265, Feb. 26, 2002; 2004Da55, May 13, 2005).

67264, 67271, et al.)

The lower court, based on the evidence duly examined and adopted, acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the instant agreement concluded between the Korea Coast Guard and the Korea Agricultural and Fisheries Corporation and the Chairperson of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the representative of the Defendant affiliated with the Defendant, agreed on the procedures, methods, etc. necessary for the efficient performance of the compensation duties, and that the Plaintiffs did not naturally agree on the procedures, methods, etc. necessary for the efficient performance of the compensation duties on the premise that the pertinent agreement falls under the compensation right holder under the instant project.

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

The court below did not err by violating the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the disposal document as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. In order to deem that the assertion on the right to claim compensation for damages has caused damages to the fishery operator of a public waters due to the implementation of a public project, the fishery operator should be engaged in the fishery business as the lawful licensed fishery operator, or the permitted or reported fishery operator at the time of the public announcement of the license for the implementation of the public project and the public announcement of the license for the implementation of the project, etc. If the fishery business was obtained or reported the fishery business after the implementation of the public project, and the restriction on the permission or reported fishery business was already objectively determined and conclusive, unlike the person who already completed the fishery business or reported the public project, the fishery business cannot claim compensation for damages or report even if the interest that the fishery operator can obtain is reduced due to the implementation of the public project, unlike the person who already completed the fishery business or reported the public project, and the issue of whether the fishery business permit or report was made under the restriction on such public project should be based on the relevant fishery permit or report in question, but it cannot be based on the already expired fishery permit or report (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da54647, Feb.

The court below determined as follows: (a) based on the evidence duly examined and adopted, found facts as stated in its reasoning; (b) compensation was made on the premise that the fishery right holder, etc. entitled to compensation for damages at the time was completely extinguished with respect to the sea route and the area prearranged for designation of a harbor prior to the designation of the trade port on October 14, 191; (c) even if a new fishery permit, etc. was granted within the boundaries of the existing major mountain port including the area in the operation zone, it cannot be deemed that the previous area was restored by the right to engage in the fishery within the boundaries of the extinguished port; and (d) the right was acquired under the premise that the restriction imposed on the implementation of the public project already conducted, and therefore, (e) the development project of the major mountain port of this case was not possible to engage in the fishing operation which was located within the boundaries of the existing major mountain port of this case, and thus, (e) the damage was actually suffered due to the fact that such damage cannot be deemed as a legally protected damage.

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

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the right to claim compensation from fishery damage.

3. On January 19, 2007, the plaintiffs' assertion of omission of judgment was asserted in the preparatory brief that the plaintiffs' refusal of compensation is against the principle of good faith or the principle of good faith, even though the court below did not make any judgment on this point, since the agreement of this case was concluded between the chairman of the Busan Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office under the defendant's control, the Korea Agricultural and Fisheries Corporation, and the Chairperson of the ○○○○○○○○○○ Compensation Measures Headquarters, the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation, which is the representative of the fishermen, and the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation, established the scope of compensation according to the appraisal and investigation results, and completed the preparation to pay the amount to the plaintiffs.

However, as seen earlier, in interpreting the agreement of this case, since the agreement of this case is deemed to have agreed on the procedures and methods of compensation necessary to efficiently perform the business of compensation when the fishery damage investigation of this case is acknowledged as a legitimate compensation holder pursuant to the relevant laws, the defendant's failure to pay compensation to the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs are not a legitimate compensation holder pursuant to the relevant laws shall not be deemed to go against the principle of good faith and the principle of good faith. Thus, the above argument of the plaintiffs is without merit, and even if there are errors in the omission of judgment, it shall not affect the conclusion of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da56116, Dec. 26, 2002; 2005Da1602, 11619, Jun. 29, 2006; 2005Da1602, 11619, etc.). Accordingly, the court below's allegation in the grounds of appeal as to the omission of judgment cannot be accepted.

4. 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

Justices Cho Go-chul

Justices Kim Ji-hyung of the District Court

Justices Lee Jae-chul

A person shall be appointed.