1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The defendant operates and manages a yacht club (hereinafter "the instant marina club") which is a harbor facility installed in the area of 1572-2 and one parcel of land, from Sinpo City, in accordance with the "Agreement on the Management and Operation of Henpo Mara or the Entrustment of Management and Operation" (hereinafter "the instant agreement"), and the plaintiff obtained permission for the use of the instant marina club from the defendant, and mooring the yacht club, etc. to the moorings of the instant marina club (hereinafter "the instant yacht club").

The Defendant collected user fees from the instant marina users, including the Plaintiff, in accordance with Article 5 of the instant agreement and the Ordinance on the Management of Yranma or Facilities Management (hereinafter referred to as the “Yolpo Ordinance”).

[Reasons] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 9 through 11, and the purport of the entire argument by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the argument is that marinaa in this case constitutes a harbor-friendly facility among harbor facilities under the Harbor Act and is located within the harbor zone publicly notified by the wooden Regional Port Office, and that the Harbor Act was enacted for the efficient management and operation of a harbor and its surrounding areas by prescribing matters concerning the designation, development, management, and use of a harbor. Thus, the Harbor Act has a special relationship with the Local Autonomy Act, and thus, the Harbor Act should first be applied.

However, in the case of Article 30 and Article 31 of the Harbor Act, which is a basis provision for collecting user fees from the users of port facilities, the defendant or Sinpo is not in the position to collect user fees.

Nevertheless, it is invalid because the defendant collects the user fee of the Marina facility of this case in accordance with Article 114 (1) and (2) of the Local Autonomy Act and the Ordinance of Sinpo City.

Therefore, there is no user fee liability for the defendant.

It is as stated in the relevant statutes.

Judgment

The above evidence Gap.