[1] In a case where a person who files a report on the fishery manufacturing business submits the report to the required documents without any procedural defect (affirmative), the existence of the duty to accept the report by the competent authority (affirmative), and in a case where the public official in charge returns the report on other grounds that are not provided for in the law, the time when the report becomes effective

[2] Whether the provision of indirect compensation under Article 23-5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Losses may apply mutatis mutandis to the compensation for indirect losses to the fishery manufacturing industry occurring outside the project district due to the implementation of public projects (affirmative with qualification

[3] The validity of additional conduits attached to fishery permission pursuant to Articles 45(1) and 12 of the former Fisheries Act (affirmative with qualification)

[4] The case recognizing the validity of the Sub-Section 1 of Article 45 and Article 12 of the former Fisheries Act, "I cannot operate within the Saemangeum Reclamation Comprehensive Development Project Area" that is attached to the fishery permission

[1] An administrative agency's report to an administrative agency refers to a unilateral notification to the relevant administrative agency as to a certain legal fact or legal relation, unless otherwise provided in the law or there is no other special circumstance, it is necessary to wait for an administrative agency's anti-private decision. Thus, the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 5131 of Dec. 30, 1995), the former Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15241 of Dec. 13, 1996), the former Rules on Permission, etc. for Fishery Manufacturing Business (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 199 of Apr. 23, 1997), and each provision of the former Rules on Permission, etc. for Fishery Manufacturing Business (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 1997, Apr. 23, 1997) shall be submitted along with the name, quantity and capacity of the main fishery manufacturing business, and the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu to accept the report without any other reason.

[2] In light of Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Losses, Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Land, etc. for Land, etc. for Public Projects provides that the project implementer shall compensate for the losses suffered by the owners of the land, etc. due to the acquisition or use of the land, etc. for the public project, etc., and Article 23-5 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that the indirect losses for the business located outside the public project implementation zone shall be compensated for if the indirect losses incurred by the fishery manufacturing business occur outside the project zone due to the implementation of the public project, and that the scope

[3] If it is deemed necessary for the public interest under Article 12 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 5131 of Dec. 30, 1995), which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 45 (1) of the same Act, the permission for fisheries may be limited or imposed conditions. The above subsidiary officer shall not readily deny its effect, unless there are special circumstances to deem that it violates the law, is impossible to implement it, is significantly contrary to the principle of proportion or equality, or it violates the essential effect of administrative disposition, or deviates from the limitation, such as impairing its essential effect

[4] The case holding that "I cannot operate within the Saemangeum Comprehensive Development Project Area" pursuant to Articles 45 (1) and 12 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 5131 of Dec. 30, 1995) shall be approved as the father-general.

[1] Article 49 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 5131 of Dec. 30, 1995); Articles 38 (2) and 42 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15241 of Dec. 31, 1996) / [2] Article 3 (1) of the Public Loss Compensation for Loss of Loss; Article 23-5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Loss Compensation for Loss of Loss / [3] Articles 12 and 45 (1) of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 5131 of Dec. 30, 1995) / [4] Articles 12 and 45 (1) of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 5131 of Dec. 30, 1995)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do1839 decided September 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 1870), Supreme Court Decision 93Ma635 decided July 6, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 257), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu697 decided September 14, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2593Ha, 29799, 281969, 281399, 1969, 1969, 1969, 1979, 1969, 1969, 1979, 1979, 1969, 197, 1969, 196, 1636) decided August 29, 197

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm 21st century General Law Office, Attorneys O Dong-sub et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 3 and 13 others

Plaintiff 17 (Attorney Han-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 18

Korea

Gwangju High Court Decision 96Na6591, 6607 delivered on October 15, 1998

Of the judgment of the court below, the part against Plaintiffs 1 and 18 and the part against the Defendants other than Plaintiffs 1, 18, and 17 are reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. The appeals by Plaintiffs 2 and 17 are dismissed, respectively. The costs of appeal between Plaintiffs 17 and the Defendant are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Part on a claim for the fishery manufacturing business;

A. Fact-finding and judgment of the court below

The lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) Plaintiff 1 operated Kim Processing business from October 31, 1983 to reporting business; (b) Kim Processing business was converted from free trade to reporting business; (c) it was intended to submit a fishery manufacturing business report to the competent Ministry of the Korea Coast Guard on April 1991 and around May 1991; (d) it was not accepted due to lack of documents attached thereto; and (e) Plaintiff 17 operated Kim Processing business and completed the fishery manufacturing business report on October 30, 191, but the Plaintiffs were excluded from compensation on the ground that they failed to file the report prior to the publication date of the instant reclamation license.

Furthermore, the court below determined that even if the plaintiffs did not file a claim for compensation unless they reported the manufacturing business prior to the date of the public notice of the above reclamation license pursuant to the compensation regulations, such as the former Public Waters Reclamation Act and the Fisheries Act, and even if the damages suffered by the plaintiffs are deemed to be the same as the above reported prior to the date of the public notice of the above reclamation license, they cannot be deemed to have a claim for compensation for damages directly to the executor of a public project based on the provisions related to indirect compensation under the Land Expropriation Act or the Enforcement Rules of the Public Waters Compensation Act (the Special Act is enacted only under the Special Act on Special Cases Concerning the Land Expropriation and the Compensation for Losses and Losses of Public Works). Since it is difficult to predict the occurrence of the indirect losses and it is difficult to easily determine the scope of the losses, the court below did not recognize the claim for compensation by applying or applying mutatis mutandis the provisions on indirect compensation under the Enforcement Rules of the above Special Act on the Compensation for Losses

B. Judgment on Plaintiff 1’s grounds of appeal

A report to an administrative agency means giving a unilateral notification to the relevant administrative agency with respect to a certain legal facts or legal relations, and is merely given a notification to an administrative agency, unless otherwise provided for in statutes or in exceptional circumstances, and there is no need to wait for an anti-private decision by the administrative agency (see Supreme Court Order 93Ma635, Jul. 6, 1993).

In addition, the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990), the former Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1308 of Dec. 30, 1995), the former Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13308 of Feb. 18, 1991) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15241 of Dec. 13, 1996), the former Rules on Permission, etc. for Fishery Industry (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries No. 1071 of Apr. 18, 1991) (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 1071 of Apr. 23, 1997), and the person who intends to make a fishery manufacturing business, together with each of the provisions of the former Fisheries Act, permits the head of the Si/Gun/Gu to report the name, quantity, and capacity of the fishery product under the Rules, and the head of 97.

Furthermore, if a report on the fishery manufacturing business was submitted to the competent Gun office, even if the public official in charge did not accept the report for any other reason not stipulated in the law and rejected it, the report should be deemed to have been filed at the time of the submission of the report (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu6780, Apr. 27, 1999; 92Do1839, Sept. 22, 1992); and the fact that the plaintiff 1 submitted the report to the fishery personnel of the Korea Coast Guard and the public official in charge of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries on May 30, 191, along with the required documents for the fishery manufacturing business; and the fact that the construction of the Kim Processing Factory, which is the reason that the public official in charge of the report was registered as a warehouse in the building management ledger, which is not stipulated in the law, shall be deemed to have been filed by submitting the report.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff did not report the fishery manufacturing business prior to the date of this case's reclamation license is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of the fishery manufacturing

On the other hand, the loss suffered by the plaintiff shall be an indirect loss outside the project district of this case, and Article 3 (1) of the Special Act provides that "the loss suffered by the owner of land, etc. due to the acquisition or use of land, etc. for a public project shall be compensated by the project operator." In light of the fact that Article 23-5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act provides that the indirect loss for the business located outside the public project execution zone shall be compensated by the project operator, if it satisfies certain requirements, it can be easily predicted that such loss will occur due to the implementation of the public project, and if the scope of the loss can be specified specifically, the indirect compensation provision of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on the Compensation for such loss may apply mutatis mutandis (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da56150, Jun. 11, 1

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have reported the fishery manufacturing business, and the report requires the location, production capacity, and securing method of raw materials of the manufacturing factory to be stated in the report, while attaching documents on the name, quantity, and capacity of the main equipment. Therefore, it can be easily predicted that the occurrence of loss can be easily predicted by comparing the size and degree of the Kim Farming farm which ceases to exist due to the implementation of the relevant public project with the location of the Kim Processing Factory, the method of securing raw materials, etc., and further, it can be understood that the amount of loss can be specified

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on indirect compensation due to the implementation of a public project, which held that the claim for compensation for losses cannot be acknowledged because the provisions on indirect compensation under the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases cannot be applied by analogy on the ground that it is difficult to anticipate the business losses suffered by the Plaintiff and the scope of losses cannot be easily determined.

Therefore, the plaintiff's ground of appeal on this part is justified and accepted.

C. Judgment on Plaintiff 17’s ground of appeal

As the former Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act entered into force on February 18, 191, it was converted into a fisheries manufacturing business requiring a report from a free trade zone to a fisheries manufacturing business requiring a report. The fact that the plaintiff 17 operated the Kim Processing Factory before the amendment of the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Decree did not have any transitional provision on the previous Kim Processing Factory operator, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. However, the person who manufactures the manufacture of the manufacture of the Kim Processing Business at the time of the enforcement of the Rules under Article 42 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Rules on the Permission, etc. for Fishery Manufacturing Business, which provides detailed procedures for the report on the fishery manufacturing business pursuant to Article 42 of the Enforcement Decree, shall report the Kim Processing Business by May 31, 191." Thus, even the existing Kim Processing Factory operator can be deemed to have continued to operate the Kim Processing Business lawfully within the period of report. In this regard, it cannot be seen that the plaintiff did not properly publicize that the defendant Kim Processing Business was converted to the reported system or that the plaintiff had not registered the above factory under the Industrial Placement Construction Act.

Furthermore, the loss suffered by the Plaintiff is an indirect loss outside the project district of this case, and an indirect loss can be easily predicted that such loss would occur due to the implementation of a public project as seen earlier, and the scope of the loss can be specified specifically, applying the provisions of the Enforcement Rule of the above Act on Special Cases to compensation for the loss. As long as the Plaintiff did not report the fishery manufacturing business prior to the announcement date of the reclamation license of this case, it is difficult to anticipate that such loss would occur to the Plaintiff, and the scope of the loss cannot be easily determined by applying the above indirect compensation provision to the above indirect compensation provision, and the claim for compensation for loss cannot be acknowledged by applying the above indirect compensation provision to the Plaintiff, and it cannot be treated equally as the case where the Plaintiff recognized the effect of the report retroactively to the date of the actual report or filed the report prior to

Furthermore, the claim for damages caused by the tort in this case is premised on the existence of the claim for damages, which cannot be seen as having been practically and practically infringed on the subject matter, and the claim for damages caused by the tort is not recognized as well as the claim for damages caused by the tort cannot be recognized.

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is not appropriate, it is just in its conclusion that the plaintiff has no compensation or damages claim. There is no violation of Article 23 of the Constitution or the principle of equality and equality, or the legal principles as to the status and nature of the previous manufacturer following the amendment of the Acts and subordinate statutes, or there is no violation of the law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, such as the ideology of the compensation-related Acts and subordinate statutes or the misapprehension of legal principles

This part of the grounds of appeal is rejected.

2. Part of the claim concerning the permitted fishery business;

A. The judgment of the court below

The court below held that the plaintiffs except the plaintiff 17 (the succeeding intervenor 2 before his withdrawal, the plaintiff 5, the plaintiff 6, the plaintiff 7, the plaintiff 8, and the plaintiff 9 are also the plaintiffs' licensed fishery business, including the deceased deceased deceased et al.) who owned 1.09t to 7.93t fishing vessels, and the plaintiff 1.0 through 22. The plaintiff 2 was not the plaintiff 5's licensed fishery business operator's 9-2's 9-2's 9-2's 6-2's 8-2's 9-2's 8-2's 9-2's 8-2's 9-2's 8-2's 6-2's 9-2's 8-2's 6-2's 9-2's 8-2's 6-2's 8-2's 9-2's 8-2's 6-2's 8-2's 19-2's 6-2's 8-2's 9-2's 1'2'2'2'2'

Based on the above facts, the court below acknowledged the effect of depriving the plaintiffs of their claim for compensation for losses incurred during the period of king is against the principle of proportionality and the principle of prohibition of unfair decision-making, on the premise that the validity of the above-mentioned shall not be recognized for the plaintiffs of permitted fishery, on the premise that the defendant should have paid appropriate compensation to the plaintiffs of permitted fishery, and should have paid appropriate compensation to the Saemangeum Project in spite of its vice-section, but did not reach it, it does not fit the original administrative purpose with which the vice-section was attached. Accordingly, the above vice-section was not attached to the renewed fishery business, and the vice-section was considerably contrary to the equity and the vice-section was attached. Therefore, the court below ordered the defendant to compensate for damages equivalent to the compensation for losses to the defendant.

B. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

If it is deemed necessary for the public interest pursuant to Article 12 of the above-mentioned Fisheries Act which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 45 (1) of the above-mentioned Fisheries Act, the permission for fisheries may be restricted or imposed conditions, and the above-mentioned subsidiary officer, which clearly falls under the restriction on permission due to needs for public interest, shall not readily deny its effect unless there are special circumstances to deem that it violates the law, is impossible to implement it, violates the principle of proportionality or equality, violates the principle of administrative disposition, or deviates from the limitation, such as impairing the essential effect of administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da56399, Nov. 24, 1998; 92Nu6020, Aug. 18, 1992

The purport of the 'Saeman Saemangeum General Development Project' in the subsidiary of the instant case is to refer to the project district publicly notified of the implementation plan on August 19, 191, and it is clear that it does not seem that only the waters in which the construction is implemented in the order in reality do not appear to have been included. Therefore, it is not clear that the father's text is not unclear.

In addition, in light of the above-mentioned provisions on the transfer or succession of fishery permits and the prohibition that another person actually controls the operation of permitted fishery business, fishery permits can not be transferred as permission for a specific person. Thus, even if the former owner takes over a fishing vessel operated with fishery permission, a transferee may newly obtain a fishery permit, and Article 41(2) of the former Fisheries Act requires a fishery permit for each fishing vessel, fishing gear, or facility. Article 19(1) of the former Rules on Fishery Permission and Report, etc. (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry No. 1136 of May 14, 1994) stipulates that a new fishery permit should be obtained in the event that the former owner intends to change a fishing vessel used for permitted fishery to another fishing vessel, and thus, it cannot be said that a new fishery permit should be obtained in the event that the former owner intends to operate a fishing vessel with a newly constructed fishing vessel, it is a substitute vessel, and that the latter vessel will succeed to a new fishery permit.

In addition, since the Do Governor's right to permit fishery is delegated to the head of a Si/Gun under Article 73 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act and each head of a Si/Gun can exercise the right to permit in accordance with the specific circumstances as his/her own authority, even if permission was granted in different areas of a Si/Gun without additional authority, it cannot be readily concluded that the existence or absence of additional authority is in violation of equity solely on the ground of such circumstances in the instant case where it was not revealed that the existence or absence of additional authority is changed depending on the region. Furthermore, insofar as the Plaintiffs of permitted fishery are not subject to the original compensation, it cannot be said that they were excluded from the subject of compensation by the Board of Audit and Inspection while proceeding for compensation.

In addition, in the event that a person who runs a fishery business after obtaining a fishery permit transfers a fishing vessel or closes a fishing vessel used for the existing permitted fishery business, the pertinent fishery permit ceases to exist, and there is no room to claim compensation for losses since the fishery business is still held at the time of the instant reclamation license announcement. Therefore, the existing claim for compensation for losses that had been destroyed by the previous fishing vessel cannot be transferred or succeeded by reason of the transfer or replacement of the fishing vessel. Therefore, in this case where special circumstances do not seem to exist, it cannot be said that the above additional clauses were attached to the fishery business permit of the Plaintiffs, which is contrary to the principle

Nevertheless, the court below's decision ordering the defendant to compensate for damages equivalent to the compensation, on the premise that the above assistant's decision did not clearly state the reasons for becoming void or that the fishery permission will continue to be valid, and that the assistant's decision is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's fishery permission and the nature or effect of the assistant's permit, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the compensation for losses or damages and the scope of the claims.

Therefore, we accept the defendant's ground of appeal pointing this out.

C. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Plaintiff 1 and the grounds of incidental appeal by Plaintiff 18

The grounds of appeal on this part of the plaintiff 1 and the grounds of incidental appeal by the plaintiff 18 dispute the amount of damages calculated by the court below on the premise that the plaintiffs have the right to compensate for losses or damages. As examined in the judgment of the defendant's grounds of appeal, it is clearly stated that the court below erred in holding that the effect of the father of this case which failed to exhaust all the deliberation of the court below does not affect the plaintiffs, and so long as the effect of the father of this case, the occurrence of compensation for losses or damages on the premise thereof, or the scope thereof cannot be reviewed and determined again, it shall not be judged separately

3. The part of the succeeding intervenor's appeal

The plaintiff 2's successor did not submit the appellate brief, and the appellate brief does not include the grounds of appeal in the appellate brief.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by Plaintiff 1 and the grounds of incidental appeal by Plaintiff 18, the part of the judgment of the court below against the Plaintiffs other than Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff 18, and Plaintiff 17 are reversed, and the part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court, and the appeal by Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 17 are dismissed, and the costs of appeal between Plaintiff 17 and the Defendant are assessed against the Plaintiff 17. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)