Fishermen Lose Appeal Over Shrimp Catch Damages From Fresh Water Discharge

Claimed Sharp Drop in Shrimp Catches
Court Rules "Fishermen Were Aware of Risks... Insufficient Evidence"
Claims of Up to 252 Million Won per Person Dismissed

Fishermen from Goheung, South Jeolla Province, who filed a lawsuit against the state claiming that the discharge of fresh water led to a decrease in shrimp catches, have lost both in the first and second trials. The court cited the fact that the fishermen were aware of the potential risks when engaging in fishing and failed to prove the actual damages.

On August 3, the Gwangju High Court Civil Division 2 (Presiding Judge Park Junghoon) announced that it had dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal in a damages lawsuit filed by Mr. A and 48 others against the Republic of Korea and Goheung County.

Mr. A and the other plaintiffs are fishermen who have been engaged in shrimp fishing in the waters near Goheungman in Goheung County, South Jeolla Province. They argued that, due to the discharge of agricultural fresh water following the construction of the Goheungman seawall, the fishing grounds had been destroyed and their catches had plummeted. They demanded that the state and Goheung County compensate each of them for damages ranging from 24,650,000 won to 252,510,000 won.

Construction of the Goheungman seawall began in 1992, and the discharge of fresh water started in 1995 after the installation of sluice gates was completed.

Other fishermen in the Goheungman area, who harvested or farmed shellfish and seaweed, filed a state compensation lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court in 2007 and were awarded approximately 9.6 billion won in damages in 2012.

Mr. A and the others filed this lawsuit in 2017, identifying the period of damage as around 2014 to 2015. Some of the plaintiffs obtained or renewed their fishing permits after the issue of damage from fresh water discharge became a social concern.

The Suncheon Branch of the Gwangju District Court, which handled the first trial, ruled, "This case corresponds to a situation where the plaintiffs were aware of the risks and accepted the possibility of damage when engaging in fishing. The plaintiffs must prove that the contaminated fresh water reached the fishing grounds and caused a sharp decline in catches, but it is difficult to recognize this based solely on the evidence submitted."

The appellate court also maintained the original verdict, stating that it was "a just conclusion."