Whether Article 37 of the Fisheries Act (Act No. 295, Sept. 9, 1953) recognizes priority of fishing rights

Article 37 of the Fisheries Act provides for the rule to set the priority order between the majority of applicants in granting a new license for fishery rights, and Article 37 of the Fisheries Act does not provide a right to independently engage in fishery business to a third party, as the license holder does not intend to grant a right to independently engage in fishery business to a third party, the claimant that the license disposition has infringed his/her priority can only attack the license disposition itself in accordance with the legal procedure, and it cannot be demanded to confirm the existence of his/her priority separately.

Fisheries Act (Law No. 295) Article 37

Daesung Unemployment Corporation

The head of the Sinho Regional Maritime Affairs Office

On October 28, 4292, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the revocation of the disposition that the Defendant licensed to Nonparty 1 (Article 119 of the implied Fishery License) on the political network fishery between Yangyang-gun, Seocho-do, Yangyang-do, Yangyang-si, which was located in the territorial waters of Yangyang-do.

The plaintiff's claim for objection is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On October 28, 4292, the Plaintiff’s attorney revoked the Defendant’s permit for the non-party 1 to the non-party 2 on behalf of the non-party 2 for a short-term period of 3 years, and revoked the permit (Article 119 of the former Fisheries Act). The Defendant sought a ruling that the Defendant should bear the right of priority for the fishery business. The Plaintiff’s claim was based on the non-party 1’s permit for the non-party 1 to the non-party 4 under the non-party 2’s consent that the non-party 1 could not directly operate the fishery business on the non-party 4’s own on behalf of the Plaintiff on the non-party 2 for the short-term of 3 years, and the Plaintiff’s claim that the non-party 2 had the right of priority for the non-party 1 to the non-party 2’s non-party 1 to the non-party 2’s non-party 1 to the non-party 2’s non-party 1 to the non-party 2’s ruling.

Defendant 1’s decision that the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed, and the Plaintiff did not have any interest in filing a lawsuit because it was not infringed upon the Plaintiff’s rights or interests due to the Defendant’s administrative act. In other words, the cancellation of the Plaintiff’s fishery right under Article 41 of the former Fisheries Act is an administrative disposition against Nonparty 1, which is the fishery right holder, and the Plaintiff’s right to fishery under Article 19 of the former Fisheries Act cannot be deemed to have been infringed. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the fishery right under Article 19 of the former Fisheries Act is not a party to the disposition. Second, the Plaintiff’s claim was accepted on February 4, 4293, but the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the license under Article 10 of the former Fisheries Act was rejected after the lapse of the statutory peremptory period from October 28, 4292, which is the date of this case’s disposition. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the license under Article 10 of the former Fisheries Act should be rejected without legitimate resolution.

The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's priority of fishery business should be revoked on September 2, 4292 because the defendant's right of priority should be revoked on the non-party 1 as alleged in the plaintiff's motion for attack 41, and the defendant's right of priority should not be revoked on the non-party 1 as stated in the plaintiff's motion for revocation of the fishery business license on the non-party 1. The plaintiff's motion for revocation of the fishery business license's right of priority should be dismissed on the non-party 1 as stated in the plaintiff's motion for non-party 1 because it is clear that the plaintiff raised an objection against the previous fishery business's license's non-party 1 on February 3, 4293. The plaintiff's motion for revocation of the fishery business license's right of priority should be dismissed on the non-party 1 as stated in the plaintiff's motion for non-party 1's motion for revocation of the fishery business license's right of priority should not be accepted separately from the plaintiff's motion for revocation of the fishery business license's motion.

Judges Kim Jae-ok (Presiding Judge)