1. The Defendant’s revocation of disposition of suspending fishery permission granted to the Plaintiff on September 16, 2013 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. The 89 tons B (hereinafter “instant vessel”) and D’s agent, who was the owner of Class 172 tons C, entered into a contract with F on March 18, 2013 to sell each of the instant vessels at KRW 2.35 billion.

In addition, the instant vessel was registered in the name of the Plaintiff in the fishing vessel registry on March 27, 2013.

After that, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant that he succeeded to the status of D with the permission for large-scale fishing using the instant vessel (hereinafter referred to as “the succession to the status of fishery permission”), and the Defendant accepted it on April 1, 2013.

D The period from July 8, 2010 to March 25, 2015 for large-scale fishing.

However, on June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a report on the closure of fishery business with the Defendant on the ground that the dissolution of the instant vessel was revoked, and applied for a postponement of a new fishery permit (hereinafter referred to as “suspension of a fishery permit”). Accordingly, the Defendant decided to postpone a fishery permit for another vessel replacing the instant vessel for one year from May 16, 2013 to May 15, 2014, and notified the Plaintiff thereof on June 26, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant disposition suspending the instant fishery permit”). However, on September 16, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the previous disposition suspending the fishery permit was revoked.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The reason is that the instant disposition is not subject to postponement of fishery permit as at June 25, 2013 when the Plaintiff applied for postponement of fishery permit.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff 1’s instant disposition is legally binding act solely on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for postponement of fishery permission was made on June 25, 2013, and the instant vessel cannot be subject to postponement of fishery permission because it had not existed at the time of the instant application for postponement of fishery permission.