beta
Text
1. The part demanding the implementation of the port facility use permit among the instant lawsuits shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's remainder.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From February 18, 201, the Plaintiff runs the maritime transport business and the retail business of aggregate sand, and the Jinjin Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sejin Shipping”) is a company engaged in the business of collecting and transporting aggregate, and the Jinjin Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S System”) added sand screening business to the company engaged in the waste land disposal business, etc., along with Jinjin Shipping, on June 21, 2013.
B. On April 9, 2013, Jinjin Shipping, etc. filed an application for permission for exclusive use with the Defendant (the name of the Defendant was “the head of the Mapo-si Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office at the time,” but the name of the Defendant was changed to “the head of the Mapo-si Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office” on January 8, 2015) for a permit for exclusive use with respect to the water bed and unloaded at the Changwon-si Masan-dong 67-1 Masan-dong Masan-dong (the facilities where fishing vessels, barges, etc. are connected and unloaded mainly on the wharf where a small vessel is connected and unloaded; hereinafter “instant harbor facilities”). On April 10, 2013, the Defendant applied for permission for use with respect to the 2,945 square meters of each of the instant harbor facilities from April 10, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
C. On December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to use harbor facilities (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Defendant on December 11, 2013 in order to use 2,800 square meters in the instant harbor facilities as a sand-free site. However, on December 12, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition with Jinjin Shipping, etc. to extend the period of permission to use the existing harbor facilities from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant permission to extend the period of permission to use the instant harbor facilities”). On December 16, 2013, the Plaintiff returned the instant application to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff is using the instant harbor facilities in another company, and there is no space to permit the Plaintiff to use the instant harbor facilities.”
(hereinafter “instant return disposition”) D.
Accordingly, the plaintiff on December 18, 2013.