beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On November 18, 2002, the Plaintiff was a corporation established for dredging business, extraction of aggregate, and sales business, and applied for permission to occupy and use public waters (hereinafter “instant application”) with respect to the Defendant on December 29, 2014, with the permission period from December 2014 to November 201, 2019, for the purpose of carrying out the business of dredging land sites and dredging at the downstream of the Reinforcement-si (hereinafter “instant project”).
B. On December 22, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on November 17, 2006 and May 18, 2007 of permission for the occupation and use of public waters for “satisfying of open ports and dredging of sea routes” as requested by the Plaintiff. As the operation of passenger ships is substantially suspended due to the opening of the bridge bridge, dredging for sea route does not correspond to the purpose of application. As the Plaintiff’s act of collecting aggregate in addition to dredging projects is subject to permission for the extraction of aggregate, it is deemed that the act of gathering aggregate continues to be subject to permission for the extraction of aggregate, and that it is not suitable for the purpose of occupancy and use of public waters for dredging projects, the instant application was rejected.
C. After that, on March 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the above disposition with the Defendant, and filed an application for the renewal of occupancy and use of public waters for the same purpose with respect to the period of permission as to 960,000 square meters (or 7,500,000 square meters of collected volume) of the public waters in the instant case as attached documents, by modifying the period of permission from March 2015 to February 202.
On March 30, 2015, the Defendant treated the Plaintiff’s application for re-permission along with a civil petition filed against the non-permission disposition on December 22, 2014, and the said civil petition filed as the Defendant of the Gun in 2008.