The case holding that the income earned by a fishery employee from his/her miscellaneous fishing vessel with a gross tonnage of 5.76 tons may be used as the basis for calculating the lost profit even if he/she sells it at a place other than that prescribed by the Decree on the Protection of Fishery Resources, because he/she takes miscellaneous fishing vessel

The case holding that even if a fishing vessel with a gross tonnage of less than 8 tons is entitled to obtain a fishery permit for coastal oil-net fishing or coastal fishing fishing, and an employee of the fishing industry who has obtained such fishery permit after the fact, can use a powered fishing vessel with a gross tonnage of 5.76 tons and sell them at a place other than that prescribed by the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources, before obtaining a fishery permit under the Fisheries Act and the Fishery Resources Protection Act, it can be considered as the basis for calculating the lost profit even if the income accrues from such sale.

Article 763(Article 393) of the Civil Act; Article 41(2)1 of the Fisheries Act; Article 2 of the Fisheries Resources Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1892 Decided December 9, 1980 (Gong1981, 13460) (Gong1981, 13460) decided March 11, 1986, 92Da34582 Decided October 27, 1992 (Gong192, 3296)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant 1-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na5856 delivered on December 16, 1993

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Determination on the second ground of appeal by the defendant's attorney

The court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff had earned the total income of at least 10,195,500 won in total, at least 50,000 won in total, from the sales price of at least 60,195,500 won in agricultural, fishery, red, or optical, or other miscellaneous profits for one year following the occurrence of the accident in this case. The court below's findings of fact are justified in light of the evidence relations stated by the court below, and it cannot be deemed that there was a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of the court below, and there is no reason to dispute.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 1

The court below determined that the plaintiff purchased 00,00 won for 5.7 tons gross tonnage of 1985 and owned 25,00,00 won for 5 seafarers at the time of the instant accident and sold 10,195,50 won for sale in 00,000 won for 10,000 won for 10,000 won for 40,000 won for 10,000 won for 50,000 won for 10,000 won for 20,000 won for 10,000 won for 5,00 won for 10,000 won for 5,00 won for 20,00 won for 10,000 won for 5,00 won for 10,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000 won for 10,000 won for 20,00 won for 305,000 won for ever.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

The so-called ○○○ fishing permit cannot be calculated on the basis of the so-called illegal income by continuing an illegal fishing. However, it is not uniformly deemed illegal income by uniformly using the revenue obtained from the prohibited act. Determination as to whether the Plaintiff constitutes illegal income by comprehensively taking into account the legislative intent of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, the possibility of criticism for such illegal act, and the degree of illegality (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu718, Mar. 11, 1986). The Plaintiff’s intending to operate coastal fishing permit or coastal fishing permit for which the gross tonnage is less than eight tons is used in the protected area, and the Plaintiff’s 100 gross tonnage is not less than 8 tons of fishing permit or fishing permit for which the Plaintiff’s 100 gross tonnage is not more than 10 tons of fishing permit or fishing permit for coastal fishing permit for which the Plaintiff’s 5 gross tonnage of fishing permit or fishing permit for which the Plaintiff’s 100 gross tonnage of fishing permit is less than 8 fishing permit or permit for fishing permit for which the Plaintiff’s 100 gross tonnage of fishing permit or permit for fishing permit is less than 3.

Under the contrary view, we cannot accept the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous on the basis of calculation of the lost income amount.

4. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)