2013 Ghana 4422 Damage (as defined)

1. A;

2. B

Attorney Lee Sang-o, Counsel for the plaintiffs

Korea

The Minister of Justice shall have the legal representative Kim Siro

Attorney Seo Jae-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

October 26, 2016

November 30, 2016

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 9,118,935 to Plaintiff A, and KRW 11,133,142 to Plaintiff B, and KRW 9,18,935 to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s response thereto.

11. To November 30, 2016, 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment shall be paid.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant set 37, 206, 735 won to the plaintiff Yellow Cheongju, and 18, 583, 652 won to the plaintiff Eul and each of the above money.

(2) 20% per annum from the day following the service of the copy of the complaint of this case to September 30, 2015, and full payment from the following day.

By the day, 15% interest per annum shall be paid.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) A politically demarcated fishery that sets up in a certain area of a tideland and captures the water (a dried net) in a fixed fashion and moves along the flow of algaes created by the passage of tidal water only.

2) From January 18, 191, 191, Plaintiff A had extended the permit for the dried-up fishery from the sloping sloping sloping in the sloping-si, Samsan-si. From January 30, 2009 to January 29, 201, Plaintiff A obtained the permit from the sloping-si, a national fishing port located in the south port of fish oil stations located in 26 to 1,800 meters in a straight line from the south coast of the sloping-si, the sloping-si, the sloping-si, the sloping-si, the sloping-si, the sloping-si, the sloping-do sloping-do, the sloping-do 855

The plaintiff B had been engaged in 150 meters in length and 0.44 meters in water surface area. 3) from July 7, 2006, the plaintiff B acquired the fishery right from C and operated 150 meters in length from October 30, 2007 to October 29, 2012, the plaintiff B was engaged in 150 meters in 150 meters in length in a straight line from the breakwater in a fishing port at a sular sea, which is located 700 meters away from the breakwater in a straight line from October 30 to October 29, 2012. The plaintiff B obtained a permit for the sular net from October 30, 2012 to October 29, 2017.

4) On July 9, 2007, the Defendant contracted to D Co., Ltd. to repair the oil reservoir (hereinafter “instant construction”). According to the Environmental Impact Assessment Report published by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries on June 2005 prior to the commencement of the instant construction, the area on the side of the fish reservoir port was increased by 2 to 4 m/ year, the amount of deposit was increased by 10 m/ year between the landing place newly established within the port and the breakwater near the port, 4 to 7mm/ year, and the amount of deposit increased by 4 to before and after the port, and the annual amount of deposit of the Plaintiff B’s fishing ground was predicted from 00 to 40 m/ 7m from May 4 to 80, 2007, and the Defendant was excluded from the Environmental Impact Assessment Report on 2097.27. 197.

B. From September 24, 2009 to November 30, 2009, a breakwater with a length of 120 meters and height of 8 meters was constructed, and construction of another breakwater with a height of 150 meters and a height of 8 meters was reported as the accumulated between the breakwater and the breakwater on December 2, 2009, and the primary measures for reduction of the order of construction from February 10 to April 24, 2010 were reviewed.

6) On September 201, 201, the Defendant publicly announced the amendment of the development plan that reduces the south breakwater from 180m to 160m, and reviewed the secondary precautionary reduction measures, such as removal of 36m out of the existing landing place 66m from February 17, 2012 to October 2012.

7) The Defendant: (a) conducted research services to the Korea Coast Engineering Association from October 15, 2012 to March 2013, 2012 to reduce the amount of deposited water inside and outside of the oil reservoir due to the instant construction; (b) according to the “Report on Research Services for the sediment Measures at the Korea Coast Engineering Association from March 2013, 201; (c) the adjacent sea area of the oil reservoir was a sea area where the flow of the sea area was changed due to artificial structures with a large erosion and sediment; (d) from 2005 to 205 to 208 to 205 to 200 to 205 to 200 to 202 to 20 to 5 to 200 to 20 to 20 to 5 to 20 to 20 to 5 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 2 to 2 to 201 to cher.

8) According to the 2002 and 2011 sea chart (No. 13-2 of the evidence No. 13-2), the depth of the sea area around the Plaintiffs’ fishing ground was lowered, and the width of the tide (around 2002, as it was revealed in the water surface at the time of smuggling) was expanded on January 201, 201, which was more than before the instant construction.

9) The Plaintiffs were buried in an open pulse with fishing gear in the existing fishing ground, and the Plaintiffs were from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2018.

Until now, a substitute fishing ground was created with a dry net fishery permit in neighboring sea areas.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence A 1, Evidence A 4, 5, 9 (including each number), evidence A 14, evidence A 25, evidence A 26-1, evidence A 26-2, evidence A 31-1, evidence A 5-2, evidence B 3, evidence A 5-4, 5, 6, 8, Eul 6, and 12, evidence A 2, evidence B 11, evidence Nos. 4, 13-1, 2-2, each image of evidence A, evidence No. 26-1, and evidence No. 31-2, evidence B, evidence No. 5-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 6, and 12, evidence A, evidence Nos. 2, 11, and 13-1, and 2, testimony of the appraiser Kim Jong-soo, and the purport of the whole testimony of the testimony of the appraisal witness.

B. Grounds for liability

According to the above facts, the Defendant started the construction of this case from July 9, 2007 after completing the environmental impact assessment on the fishery harbor facility business of the fish oil reservoir. The fishery oil refining port has become more deposited than the expected amount in the environmental impact assessment, and two deposited measures have been taken two times from December 2009 to October 2012, 201, the amount of deposited measures has increased thereafter, and the amount of deposited measures has increased to March 201 due to the construction of this case, and the amount of deposited measures has increased to the inside and outside of the fishery oil ports. The width of the sea area where the Plaintiffs have fishing grounds adjacent to the fishery harbor of the fish reservoir was expanded in 2011 compared to the year 202.

따라서 이 사건 공사로 어유정항과 주변 해역이 퇴적경향이 우세한 지역으로 변화되었고, 이러한 퇴적 환경의 변화가 어유정항과 인접한 원고들의 어장에도 영향을 주어 , 원고들의 어장에도 퇴적량이 증가하여 건간망 그물과 지주목이 뻘에 잠겨 원고들이 어획량이 감소하는 등의 손해를 입었다고 할 것이므로, 피고는 환경정책기본법 제31조에 따라 원고들에게 이 사건 공사로 원고들이 입은 손해를 배상할 의무가 있다 .

C. Limitation on liability

However, evidence Nos. 25, Eul evidence Nos. 25, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 9, 16 through 19, 21 through 23, Eul evidence Nos. 26-1, 26-2, Eul evidence Nos. 13, Eul evidence Nos. 13-1, and 2 as a whole, the following circumstances are as follows: ① The Japan Sea area with the Gyeonggi Water Posing the Gyeonggi Water Posing from 1987 to 194; ② the Incheon International Airport Highway, Incheon Airport Highway, and Tado Urban Development from 192 to 19, and the Incheon Sea Area No. 2000 to 201; ② the Incheon Sea Area's Water Posing from 20 years to 20 years to 19 years to 20 years to 19 years to 200, and the plaintiffs' water mosium and 2 years to 3 years to 20 years to 3 years to 3 years to 20.

Since around January 19, 201, the court filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages as a result of the decrease of catch due to construction works of Incheon International Airport, etc., and the above court did not make a significant change for the period of 2002 to the sectional fishery using fishing vessels (including the dry net fishery) and the fishing ground of coastal fisheries in the Incheon reinforced Gun area.

From 202 to November 20, 200, a new bridge has been formed since 2002 due to the progress of the Incheon International Airport Construction Project, and the Incheon International Airport Expressway Construction Project, which was conducted from November 29, 1995 to November 20, 200, and the continuous decrease of the past, and the operation area has been reduced due to the decline of the depth.

는 등 어장 환경의 많은 변화로 건간망 그물과 지주목이 뻘에 매몰되거나 건간망 어구의 하단부가 침식된 바닥위로 노출되는 등으로 어업이 불가능하여 어업허가가 취소된 경우의 3년분 어업손실액으로 2002년도 평균 수익액의 3배를 손해로 산정하여 원고 A에게 26, 236, 800원의 손해를, C에게 29, 156, 400원의 손해를 인정하는 판결 ' 을 선고한 점, ③ 위와 같은 퇴적물 증가로 인한 간석지가 넓어지는 변화는 장기 간의 걸쳐서 점차적으로 이루어지고, 원고들도 간석지의 변화에 따라 다른 위치에 허가를 받아 건간망 어업을 계속할 수 있는 점, ④ 원고들 건간망 어업의 조업실적, 평균 연간 어획량이나 소득에 관한 자료가 없는 점 등 이 사건 공사뿐만 아니라 다른 자연적 · 인공적 환경요인들이 개입하였을 가능성이 크고, 이 사건 공사 현장과 원고들 어장의 거리 등을 고려하여 손해의 공평한 분담을 위해서 피고의 책임을 원고 A에게 30 %, 원고 B에게 50 % 로 제한한다 .

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Facts of recognition;

In full view of Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 22-1, Eul evidence 23, Gap evidence 26-23, Gap evidence 26-35 (including each number), Gap evidence 36, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of appraiser Eul's appraisal of the creation cost of alternative fishing ground, the plaintiff Eul registered the business with the title of "F" from March 21, 2005, Eul registered the business with the trade name of "G" and "B" from December 30, 1996, the amount of income subject to global income tax in 201, the amount of income subject to the plaintiff Eul's global income tax in 12,602,67, the amount of income in 2012, the amount of income in 11,260, and 360, and the amount of income in 2012, the amount of income in 200, and the amount of income in 130,000 won from March 21, 2014.

12. Until March 31, 199, an alternative fishing ground was created with a fishing net permit obtained by the dried fishery permit. The Plaintiff’s alternative fishing ground creation cost of KRW 16,978,00, and the period of creation is 23 days, and the amount of daily wage for rural communities in 2011 is 82,66, and 54,777.

B. Determination

According to the above facts, since the construction of this case was unable to carry on the emull fishery in the existing fishing ground, and a substitute fishing ground was created by newly obtaining a permit for the emull fishery in the neighboring sea area, the plaintiffs should compensate the defendant for the creation cost of the emull fishing ground and the losses for the suspension of business during that period as ordinary damages. Although the plaintiffs registered their business, the plaintiff A did not submit any documentary evidence on income, and the reported income of the plaintiff B after registering the business of the emull lodging business was less than the emullary wage. Thus, the business suspension damage during the period of the emull fishing ground creation of the plaintiffs shall be calculated

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff A 11, 133, 142 won = (33, 886, 50 won + (82,66 won for creating a substitute fishing ground + 82,66 won for losses from business suspension x 39 days) ¡¿ 0.3, less than won; hereinafter the same shall apply) 9, 118, 935 won [ = (16,978,00 won for creating a substitute fishing ground + 54,777 won for losses from business suspension x 23 days) + 0.5% of the following following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case x 5% of the annual amount of money calculated by the defendant from June 11, 2013 to November 30, 2016, which is the date of the judgment of this case; and 15% of the annual amount of money prescribed by the Civil Act concerning the promotion of litigation, etc. from the next day of each litigation prescribed by the Civil Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, it is decided as per Disposition by admitting the plaintiffs' claims within the scope of the above recognition.

Judges Lee Jae-chul