Jindo fishermen who filed a lawsuit against the country saying they had suffered damage to their livelihood, such as the contamination of the farm, caused by the Sewol tragedy, lost in the second trial.

The Seoul High Court Administrative Division 9 (Ji-Cheol Kim, Deputy Judge Min Jeong-seok, Kyung-hoon Lee) dismissed the plaintiff's claim as the first trial in six lawsuits filed against the Korean government by six people, including Lee Mo-min, a resident of Jindo-gun, Jeollanam-do, South Korea.

Fishermen such as Lee participated in rescue and search operations by mobilizing private fishing boats at the request of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries after the Sewol ferry disaster on April 16, 2014.

In addition, a lawsuit was filed in September 2016, claiming that the area was banned for fishing due to the establishment of a non-navigation zone.

Not only did fishermen not live for a long time, they claimed that the farm was contaminated with oil leaked from the sunken Sewol.

The amount of damage that fishermen demanded from the government is about 30 million to 300 million won per person.

Prior to the lawsuit, they filed a claim for compensation for compensation for compensation for the April 16-year-old tragedy and compensation committee based on the'Special Act for the Relief and Support for the April-16th-Year-Old Snake Victim'.

However, when less money was claimed as compensation, the lawsuit was filed.

A legal issue is a statute based on the calculation of compensation.

The Sewol Relief Assistance Act states that the government is obligated to compensate for losses of residents of Jindo-gun, etc., who have been harmed by fishing, but there is no provision for calculating compensation for fishermen.

In the first trial, instead of the Sewol Relief Assistance Act, when the fishing industry was restricted due to the need for public interest, it claimed to calculate the amount of losses in accordance with the provisions of the Fisheries Law, which allowed fishermen to claim compensation. I did.

The trial court of the first trial separately proved that the damages provided by the Fisheries Act and the Fisheries Act are separate systems, so that the fishermen's laws and regulations related to the Fisheries Act are the targets for compensation, or they are compensated by the Sewol Relief Support Act. He judged that there should be a requirement.

The fishermen appealed, but the trial court dismissed the second trial, saying, "There is no reason for the plaintiff's appeal because the trial was justified."

It seems that the fishermen's side has not been able to prove to the extent that the appellate court accepts the basis for the compensation.

(Photo = Yonhap News)