The case holding that the plaintiffs were engaged in fisheries after obtaining various fishery permits, but they do not fall under those entitled to compensation under Article 156 of the Rural Community Modernization Promotion Act because they were fishery rights holders under Article 2 (3) of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990) at the time of the implementation of the construction of the river mouth bank or they were not registered fishery holders under Article 43 (1) and (2) of the same Act.

Article 156 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act; Article 2 Subparagraph 3 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990); Articles 43(1) and 43(2) of the former Fisheries Act

1. Hamnam et al.

Korea Agriculture Promotion Corporation

Gwangju District Court Decision 9Na1606 delivered on May 28, 1992

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay 21,800,000 won to the plaintiff Kim Jae-Nam, 6,000,000 won to the plaintiff Kim Jae-in, 14,800,000 won to the plaintiff Lee Yong-Nam, 14,80,000 won for each of them, and 25 percent per annum from the day after the day of service of the complaint to the day of full payment.

1. Determination on this safety defense

First, the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' claim for compensation under the Act on the Promotion of Agricultural and Fisheries Modernization of Agricultural and Fishing Villages is an administrative claim, but if the decision of compensation is not reached by consultation between the project operator and the interested parties, the Do governor and the person who has an objection to the decision can again file an application for the decision with the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, as prescribed by the above Enforcement Decree of the Act, since the plaintiff's claim for compensation under the Act on the Promotion of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Modernization of Agricultural and Fishing Villages is not unlawful since the plaintiff's claim for compensation under Article 157 of the above Act, because the area of the above river that he had been engaged in fishing by the defendant was changed to a scardddy through the process of the above trial and the area that he had been unable to engage in fisheries has changed to a scarddy irrigation, which was completed by the defendant on February 28, 1981.

Therefore, even if the act of causing compensation as in this case is a public law, the compensation itself is merely an obligation under an agreement between the parties or a judicial obligation under the provisions of law, and thus, the filing of the lawsuit in this case to the court below in accordance with the civil procedure for the exercise of a private right to claim compensation for damages does not constitute violation of jurisdiction. Furthermore, unlike the State Compensation Act or the Requisition Act, the procedure of claiming compensation for damages under the above Act requires that the procedure of prior trial, such as the decision, must be followed before the institution of the lawsuit, is being brought to the court below, and unlike the State Compensation Act or the Requisition Act, the procedure that the parties can voluntarily go through for the decision of compensation before the institution of the lawsuit is being brought to the court below. Thus, even if the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit without going through the procedure prescribed in the above Act, it cannot be deemed an illegal

2. Judgment on the merits

Since the above 1, 2, and 3-1, 6, 13-1, 17-1, 18-3, 1, and 4-1, and 18-1, 7-1, and 9 of the above-mentioned fishing waters, the plaintiffs had no longer been engaged in the above 1, 8-1, 7-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-7, 9-1, 9-1, 9-7, 9-1, 9-7, 9-1, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-1, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-1, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-1, 1,2,000-7.

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant, as the business entity of the construction of river mouth in the above Yeongsan River, was entitled to be engaged in the previous fishery due to their reasons as seen above, and therefore, the defendant, as the business entity of the construction of river mouth in the above Yeongsan River, the compensation under Article 156 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, the amount of damage at the time of 1981 under Article 75 (3) of the former Fisheries Act and Article 72 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the amount of the damage at the time of 108,242,40,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00.

Therefore, the above Article 156 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act provides that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive compensation under Article 156 of the above Act; before amendment by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990, the implementer of the farmland improvement project shall pay fair compensation for losses incurred by the project due to reasons other than Article 154(1). Article 6 of the above Act provides that the owner of the farmland improvement project shall be entitled to receive compensation under Article 156 of the above Act; the owner of the fishery right who is related to the farmland improvement project and the owner of the fishery right under Article 40 of the above Act shall be entitled to receive compensation under Article 2(3) of the above Act; Article 40(1) of the above Act provides that the owner of the fishery right shall be entitled to receive compensation under Article 154(1) of the above Act; Article 40(1) of the above Act provides that the owner of the fishery right shall not be entitled to receive compensation under the above Act; Article 40(1) of the above Act provides that the owner of the fishery right shall be entitled to obtain registration under the above Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case seeking compensation under Article 156 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act for the second stage farmland improvement projects implemented by the defendant are dismissed without any justifiable reasons, on the premise that the plaintiffs are eligible for compensation under the second stage farmland improvement projects implemented by the defendant. The judgment of the court below which has the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal against this is without merit, and all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yellow Jin (Presiding Judge)