The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The court below determined that the cancellation of the permission for the occupation and use of the public waters of this case and the installation of a structure of this case is unlawful in light of the relevant legal principles as to evidence and the legal reasoning of the court below's determination that the cancellation of the permission for the occupation and use of the public waters of this case and the installation of a structure of this case was unlawful, since there is no evidence to find that the permission for the occupation and use of the public waters of this case and the installation of a structure of this case were violated by the plaintiff, or there was a change in circumstances such as the violation of the duty of the plaintiff or the need for important public interest, and there was no other evidence to find that the permission for the occupation and use of the public waters of this case and the installation of a structure of this case was unlawful, since the cancellation of the permission for the occupation and use of the public waters of this case and the installation of a structure of this case was unlawful in light of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

2. In an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, an administrative agency can add or modify other grounds for disposition only to the extent that the basic facts are identical to those of the original disposition, and it is not, in principle, allowed to assert as grounds for disposition on the grounds of separate facts for which the basic facts are not recognized as identical (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6160, Jun. 27, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu603, Jan. 19, 198; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu694, Jul. 21, 1987; 83Nu396, Oct. 25, 1983; etc.).

According to the facts established by the court below, it is clear that the defendant revoked each of the above permits by exercising the right of revocation reserved against the defendant under paragraphs (6) and (7) of the above sub-section 1 attached to the permission for the occupation and use of public waters of this case and the permission for the installation of a structure of this case. However, in the lawsuit of this case, the defendant's ground for revocation of each of the above permits was newly asserted due to the ground for revocation of each permission of this case, each of the above permits was granted due to the evasion of the law of the plaintiff, or since the public waters of this case are zones subject to the Seoul Metropolitan Area Maintenance Basic Plan, and thus the above permission was unlawful and unjust. Thus, since the defendant's ground for revocation of each of the above permission

The judgment of the court below with the same purport is just, and the judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of grounds for revocation of administrative disposition, such as the theory of lawsuit.

3. The plaintiff's period of permission to occupy and use the public waters of this case and permission to install the structure of this case, the period of permission to occupy and use the public waters of this case, and the ( Address 1 omitted) branch lines of Pyeongtaek-gun are as pointed out by the plaintiff's theory that the period of permission to install the public waters of this case has expired on November 14, 1987, and the ( Address 2 omitted) branch lines on December

However, according to the facts established by the court below, although non-party 1 obtained permission to occupy and use public waters for a period of one year from the defendant on November 18, 1984 and obtained permission to install maritime storages on March 5, 1985, the plaintiff was transferred the rights and obligations arising from the permission to occupy and use public waters or to install structures on February 28, 1986, and the above ( Address 1 omitted) line was additionally granted permission to the plaintiff on June 5, 1986 and received permission to occupy and use public waters or to install structures on October 31, 1986 (one year). The court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the cancellation of permission to occupy and use public waters as well as in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above public waters under the law as to the cancellation of permission to occupy and use public waters by the non-party 1, the total area of the public waters in this case and the fixed period of 17,648 square meters and 3 meters, respectively.

4. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)