공유수면 내 무단점용시설물 무상귀속 처분 취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the court of first instance
A. On June 29, 1998, the key issue of this case was that the Plaintiff obtained permission for occupancy and use of public waters and permission for installation of structures from the Defendant on the 1443 branch line of Busan Shipping Daegu Do-Do 1443 public waters (hereinafter “the public waters of this case”), and thereafter, the permission for occupancy and use of public waters was revoked on January 14, 2008.
Pursuant to Article 21(2) of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act (hereinafter “Public Waters Act”), the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to restore the area to the area where the Plaintiff was established and owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff failed to implement the order, thereby making a disposition of gratuitous reversion to the area where the area was located (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 21(6) of the Public Waters Act and Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.
Article 21(6)1 of the Public Waters Act, which is the basis for the disposition of this case, provides that "a person who has occupied or used public waters without obtaining an occupancy or use permit" may gratuitously revert when he fails to comply with an order of reinstatement. Thus, as in the case of this case, whether the Plaintiff is included in "a person who has occupied or used public waters without obtaining an occupancy or use permit" as provided in the above provision is included in "a person who has occupied or used public waters without obtaining an occupancy or use permit."
B. Determination 1 of the court of first instance at the court shall be strictly interpreted and applied, and shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in a manner unfavorable to the other party to the administrative act. Even if a teleological interpretation that takes into account the legislative intent, purpose, etc. is not entirely excluded, such interpretation shall not go beyond the ordinary meaning of the text and text (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du13791, Feb. 28, 2008; 2007Du13791, 13807.