1. The part of the first instance judgment against the plaintiffs shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant limited to the Plaintiffs on October 18, 2011.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) The absence of a ground for disposition (A) the construction cost of the instant substitute facility constitutes the cost required for the implementation of the instant license officer, and also has the nature as compensation for the North Korean vacant land which existed in the public waters subject to reclamation. Thus, the construction cost of the instant substitute facility is included in the total construction cost required for reclamation work.

② Article 26(1) of the Public Waters Reclamation Act that provides that the operator of the reclamation project of public waters acquires ownership of reclaimed land equivalent to total project cost is a mandatory law. Thus, if the contents of the instant reclamation license holder do not include the construction cost of alternative facilities in total project cost, it is invalid and invalid, and the modification disposition based on invalid additional plan is unlawful.

③ Therefore, the construction cost of the instant substitute facility is included in the total project cost required for reclamation works, and there is no defect in the initial completion disposition, and thus, the cause of the instant modification disposition is not recognized.

B. The authorization of completion for reclamation of public waters is a suspension condition for the effectiveness of reclamation license and a confirmation disposition that the license holder satisfies the requirements for the acquisition of ownership of reclaimed land equivalent to total project cost. As such, the defendant's authorization of completion has no authority to make a change in the form of public waters unless there are separate legal grounds, and there is no authority to do so.

② On September 21, 2008, the Defendant obtained authorization for the completion of the instant reclamation license from the Plaintiffs, and three years thereafter.