어업면허반려처분취소
1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 28, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs on August 28, 2017, that the Plaintiffs applied for (the Plaintiff’s father, the Plaintiff’s father, applied on behalf of the Plaintiffs) was decided as the priority order of a fishery license on the surface of the water (the instant water surface D; hereinafter “instant water”). The Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the application for the fishery license accompanied by the location map of the instant water surface and the letter of notarial rejection, etc. by September 24, 2017.
The location of the water surface and the type of fishery business in the area of the water surface: The area of the water surface surrounded by the line connected in sequence between (a) and (d) in the ethic city: FJ NAG NA TI M QU (20 square meters) 292 (Scheduled) 200,000 square meters (20 square meters)
B. On October 24, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an application for a fishery license with the Defendant, accompanied by the location, area, and notarial note of the waters as follows. The Defendant on November 2, 2017 and the same month:
3. On November 21, 2017, the Plaintiffs notified the Plaintiffs that the period of civil petition would be extended by November 21, 2017, on the grounds of the need to resolve fishery disputes arising in relation to the area subject to fishery license
C. On November 15, 2017, the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiffs the materials proving that there was an agreement on fishery dispute between the permitted fishing vessel operator and the permitted fishing vessel operator within the fishery license application area on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s fishery license application area overlaps with the previous permitted fishing vessel operator’s fishing vessel business operator’s fishing ground area, and issued a supplementary notice to the effect that it shall submit materials proving the agreement after removing the previous Kim Anaculture facilities installed outside the fishery license application area and the application area. On December 1, 2017, the Defendant issued a supplementary notice to the effect that it would supplement the above contents (the second second second notice).
As the Defendant did not comply with the above supplementary notification, on December 15, 2017, the Defendant rejected the application for fishery license to the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Reasons for Recognition]