1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant and the costs of appeal arising from the intervention in the appeal.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court, except that the defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "subsidized intervenor") is deemed to be a supplementary intervenor, and all the "captain subrogation" as stated in the part above are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court, and thus, this part shall be cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the case where the defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "subsidized intervenor").

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The former Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Public Waters Management Act”).

(2) Although the term “non-performance of compensation or civil petition filing against fishery right holders” is not stipulated in the Enforcement Decree, the Defendant rendered the instant non-permission disposition on the grounds of non-permission on the occupation and use of public waters. However, the Defendant’s non-permission disposition on the ground of the failure to submit a detailed agreement among fishery rights holders and filing a civil petition. The Defendant’s application of this case is unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff’s application of this case aims at “the acceptance of sea water to be used for the cooling water of the period of No. 1 and No. 2 before filing a report,” and the acceptance of sea water alone cannot be deemed as causing any damage to the Intervenors affiliated with the auxiliary fishery business operators (hereinafter “the instant fishery business operators”). Thus, they do not constitute the right holder, namely, the right holder related to the occupation and use of public waters

Even if the instant fishermen were to consent to the instant application, according to the agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, the said fishermen comprehensively consented to the instant application.

Therefore, it is unlawful that the Defendant refused to grant permission on the ground that the Plaintiff did not consent to the fishermen of the instant case.

3..