1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of E (4.98 tons, fishing vessel number F) who obtained each fishery permit from the Defendant with a coastal self-net (permission No. B), coastal complex (permission No. C), and new fishing network (permission No. D).

B. On November 5, 2015, the captain of E was discovered to a public official supervising the fishery management body of Seodaemun Sea Fisheries in the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries while he captured approximately 0.5 nautical miles of the view zone of the large west-do permitted at 9.4 nautical miles (N 34.03.8 east 127.29 east 127.7 east 214-9 east) from the north east west-do, such as the Scong-si, Mag-si, Mag-ri, Mag-ri, etc. (N 34.0 east 0.5 km) on the north west-do.

C. On December 8, 2015, the Defendant issued a 30-day disposition of suspension of fisheries (from December 30, 2015 to January 28, 2016; hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 34(1)8, 9, 49, and 58(1) of the Fisheries Act, and Article 6(2) of the Rules on the Standards and Procedures for Administrative Dispositions against Violations of the Fisheries Act, on the grounds that the Plaintiff violated Article 41(3) of the Fisheries Act by the said act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 41(3) of the Fisheries Act’s illegality of the instant disposition is not directly related to the Plaintiff’s violation, and thus cannot be seen as the basis provision for the instant disposition. Article 79(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act is unlawful in light of the fact that the instant disposition is unlawful as a penalty surcharge restriction provision that requires more strict disposition than Article 91 of the Fisheries Act, which is a superior provision. (2) The Plaintiff’s deviation from or abuse of discretionary power was deemed to have been under the influence of 0.3 nautical miles of the fishing net permit zone inevitably going away from 0.3 nautical miles at the time of the instant disposition; (3) the Plaintiff’s deviation from or abuse of discretionary power was not intentional; (4) the newly acquired small amount is smaller than the small amount and returned within five minutes.