Whether the license for fishery business can be revoked by mistake

The defendant joining the defendant's application for a fishery license on September 23, 1971 filed one year prior to the plaintiffs' application for a fishery license on October 30, 1972, and the defendant joining the defendant is a person who has more fishery experience than the plaintiffs in the fishing ground in this case and is in a position to obtain a more entertainment than the plaintiffs in accordance with Article 27 (1) and (2) of the Fisheries Act, and therefore, the defendant's application for a fishery license on September 23, 1971 is a fishery license by mistake, and the defendant's disposition of the license against the plaintiffs can be revoked in accordance with Article 22 of the Fisheries Act.

Articles 22 and 27 of the Fisheries Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Nu180 delivered on September 24, 1974 (Article 1 (269) 1178 of the Administrative Litigation Act, 499No8050 delivered on September 24, 197)

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Jeonnam-do Governor

An intervenor;

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant's disposition of revocation of No. 1134 of the previous political fishery license of the plaintiff et al. as the plaintiff et al.'s 1173-133 of the previous male production of December 31, 1973 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

On December 31, 1973, the Defendant filed an application for the above 173-13 permission for the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's defendant

Therefore, the defendant's application for a fishery license filed on September 23, 1971 by the plaintiff et al. was filed one year prior to the application for the license filed by the plaintiff et al. on October 30, 1972. The defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's application for a fishery license filed on September 23, 1971 with more fishery experience than the plaintiffs in the fishing ground in this case and recognized it as being in a position to obtain a license prior to the plaintiffs' priority under Article 27 (1) and (2) of the Fisheries Act, and the plaintiff et al.'s disposition of the above license was wrong, and the defendant's disposition of cancellation of the fishery license as a result of the above circumstances cannot be viewed as an unlawful disposition that infringes the plaintiff's right to acquire the plaintiff et al.'s fishery license under Article 22 of the Fisheries Act.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and each of them is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing parties. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List]

Judges Kim Jae-ju (Presiding Judge)