2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Based on the former Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act, the Plaintiff obtained permission to possess two recommended guns from the Defendant as follows.

No. 376 of the firearms name of the manufacture company, No. 376 of the firearms number B S6C No. 377 of the permit number No. 377

B. On October 31, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the cancellation of custody for the purpose of hunting activities, setting the period from November 20, 2016 to February 28, 2017, for the cancellation of custody of guns (shot guns) with the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant application”). C.

On November 17, 2016, the Defendant held a deliberation committee on cancellation of custody of guns, and held a deliberation committee on the applicant’s criminal records, etc. on the application for cancellation of custody on the ground that the Defendant’s refusal of the instant application constitutes cases deemed necessary for maintaining public safety under Article 14-2(3) of the former Act on the Safety Management of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc. (Amended by Act No. 14476, Dec. 27, 2016; hereinafter “the former Guns Act”).

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Disposition of this case’s ground for recognition of this case’s existence of no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion has been safely used of a gun that had been permitted to possess in accordance with the procedure for the past, and considering all circumstances such as the details and details of the Plaintiff’s past criminal records, it does not constitute “a case where it is deemed necessary to maintain public safety” as stipulated in Article 14-2(3) of the Guns Act for reasons for refusing the cancellation of storage

The instant disposition is not only a violation of the principle of proportionality but also a deviation or abuse of discretionary power by excessively expanding the public safety and restricting the exercise of the Plaintiff’s ownership.

In addition, the defendant's disposition of this case is maintained at any time.