Whether or not a person who has obtained a fishery license under the Inland Water Fisheries Development Promotion Act in a river area belonging to a development restriction zone shall obtain separate permission under the Urban Planning Act in order to collect earth and rocks, etc.

Any person who has obtained a license for inland fish farming business under the Inland Water Fisheries Development Promotion Act shall be able to collect earth and rocks, history, etc. in a river area within the scope necessary for the licensed fishery without obtaining the license under Article 25 of the River Act. However, gathering earth and rocks and private history in a river area under the Urban Planning Act constitutes the alteration of the form and quality of land, and the alteration of the form and quality of land which entails large amounts of earth and rocks and private history in a development restriction zone or is deemed to impede the purpose of designating a development restriction zone is prohibited from being permitted from the beginning, and the alteration of the form and quality of land is subject to the permission of the head of Si/Gun, unless the construction or project is commenced at the time of the designation of a development restriction zone, and even if the person is a holder of a license for fishery business in a river area designated as a development restriction zone, it cannot be readily concluded that it does not constitute a change in the form and quality of land in violation of the purpose of designation by restoring it to the state at the time of designation of a development restriction zone under Article 21

Articles 1 and 14(1)2 of the Inland Water Fisheries Development Promotion Act, Article 25(1)6 of the River Act, Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 8 subparag. 4 of the same Enforcement Rule

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6856 Decided September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1479: Return judgment)

Kim use

Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6856 Decided September 12, 1989

Daegu High Court Decision 89Gu1217 delivered on February 7, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The plaintiff to whom a license for inland water fish farming business under the Inland Water Fisheries Development Promotion Act is transferred may collect earth and sand, history, etc. in a river area within the extent necessary for licensed fisheries without obtaining permission under Article 25 of the River Act pursuant to Article 14 (1) 1 of the same Act. However, under Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and subparagraph 4 of Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the extraction of earth and sand and sand in a river area constitutes the alteration of the form and quality of land, and the alteration of the form and quality of land which entails large quantity of earth and stone and private history in a development-restricted zone or interfere with the purpose of the designation of a development-restricted zone under the Urban Planning Act is prohibited from being permitted from the beginning, and which does not interfere with the purpose of the designation of a development-restricted zone without obtaining permission from the head of Si/Gun and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, even if the plaintiff obtains permission from the head of the Si/Gun, Gun and Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun Gun.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)