The plaintiff's appeal and the preliminary claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

The costs of appeal and the costs of appeal are added at the trial.

As to this case, our court's explanation is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, which is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance, after deducting the following contents from adding them as stated in paragraph (2).

(1) In light of the fact that the defendants have carried out fishery activities by their own fishing vessels and gear so far, and only 150,000 won per sectional fishery business is paid to the plaintiff, but they do not distribute the profits earned from the fishing ground to the plaintiff and exercise their rights based on the permission for sectional fishery by themselves, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff had entrusted the name of the permission for sectional fishery business to the defendants, or that the defendants have agreed to return the rights in accordance with the permission if the plaintiff so wishes, and there is no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff recommended the permission for sectional fishery business at the time of the plaintiff's argument for the determination of the request for the return of unjust enrichment, the plaintiff may request the revocation of the existing permission, and collect the rent for fishing ground from the holder of the permission. The compensation for losses from sectional fishery business includes the plaintiff's authority, so the defendants shall return the amount equivalent to the plaintiff's share out of the compensation received.

At this time, the ratio of the plaintiff is at least 40% in light of the cases of the distribution of compensation for losses by the neighboring fishing village fraternity.

Judgment

In addition to the purport of the entire argument as a result of the inquiry into three times at the court of first instance, it is clear that the Plaintiff would compensate for lost income arising from the Defendants’ failure to conduct fishery activities in accordance with the divided fishery permit, and that the Plaintiff’s recommendation right or the rent for fishing ground is not a compensation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit. The Plaintiff’s assertion on domestic affairs, etc. is recommended.