1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is a person who has obtained a fishery permit from Seocheon-gun to Seocheon-gun with the period of permission for coastal net fishery D, coastal improvement harbor E, coastal network fishing F, from June 17, 2015 to December 31, 2018, using B (a diesel engine 7.93 tons for ships) and C (7.93 tons of diesel engine 7.93 tons for ships).

On December 9, 2015, the Defendant was notified of the administrative disposition that “A person who intends to run a coastal net fishery business” was subject to permission from the Mayor/Do Governor for each fishing vessel or fishing gear on August 23, 2015, the Plaintiff was in violation of the Fisheries Act by capturing up one mold of G’s net net fishing gear, the fishing area of which is limited to KRW 1,000,000 on the west coast of the Republic of Korea, from August 24, 2015, at the 2nd coast of the west-si, west-si, west-si, west-si, west-si, west-si, west-si, west-si, west-si, west-do.”

On January 4, 2016, the Defendant, based on Article 41(2) of the Fisheries Act, proposed a suspension of fishery permission for up to 90 days and a suspension of the license for fishery officers for up to 60 days on the ground of the Plaintiff’s violation of the Fisheries Act, issued a prior notice of disposition requesting submission by January 18, 2016 when there is an opinion.

On February 2, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of fishery (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on 90 days against the Plaintiff (from April 6, 2016 to July 4, 2016) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff did not receive prior notice of the disposition of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case violates Article 21 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The disposition of this case constitutes a violation of the plaintiff's Fisheries Act, and if the plaintiff's livelihood is supported by the seafarer's livelihood, etc., the disposition of this case constitutes a deviation from discretion

The defendant's defense prior to the merits is judged.