1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Bapo-si set up the Mapo-si, 1572, etc. and the front waters of the land of the Mapo-si, and the Mapo-si, which are the mooring facilities of the Mapo-si, entrusted the operation and management of the Mapo-si facilities to the Defendant in accordance with the “Agreement on Entrustment of the Management and Operation of the Mapo-si,” (hereinafter “the instant Convention”).

B. From January 2012, the Plaintiff obtained permission for the use of the instant marina facilities from the Defendant, and continuously moored the instant marina.

C. The Defendant collected user fees from the users of the instant marina, including the Plaintiff, in accordance with the instant agreement and the instant Ordinance on the Operation of the Yama or Facilities Management (hereinafter “Yapo Ordinance”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 9 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7 through 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is a water-friendly harbor facility within a harbor zone.

The user fee of a harbor facility may be collected from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, the operator of the harbor facility delegated or entrusted by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries pursuant to Article 30 of the Harbor Act, or the lessee who has concluded a rental contract from the operator of the harbor facility pursuant to Article 31 of the Harbor Act, and the person who has newly installed the harbor facility and is entitled to use the harbor facility free of charge due to the ownership of the State may collect the user fee from the State pursuant to Article 30 or 31 of the Harbor Act.

In the premise that the Marina of this case constitutes public facilities as prescribed in Article 144 of the Local Autonomy Act, the instant agreement was concluded with the Defendant in accordance with the Ordinance of Sinpo-si on the Management of Marina of this case, and accordingly, the Defendant collected the user fee from the Plaintiff.