1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Ministry of National Defense, while promoting the Jeju Navy Base Construction Project (Private and Military Complex Tourism Complex) (hereinafter “the instant project”), determined the Hapo-gu Unit G in Seopo-si as the site for the instant project and notified the Defendant on June 8, 2007.

B. On March 3, 2010, the head of the Busan Regional Maritime Affairs and Port Office issued a disposition of approval for reclamation of public waters for the purpose of site for facilities in the Jeju Naval Base (U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant reclamation approval disposition”). C.

Article 245(1) and (2) of the Special Act on the Establishment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and the Development of Free International City as amended by Act No. 10701 on May 23, 201 and Article 12 of the Addenda of the Special Act on the Establishment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and the Development of Free International City succeeded to the public waters in the instant project site to

On November 20, 2012, the Plaintiffs, residents of Seopo-si H, filed an application with the Defendant for revocation of the instant disposition of reclamation approval through the organization of I on November 20, 2012. On December 5, 2012, the Defendant notified that the instant lawsuit for revocation of the instant disposition of reclamation approval was pending with the Gwangju High Court ( Jeju High Court) 2012Nu296, and that it is a plan to take measures according to the outcome of the said lawsuit.

(hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”). E.

On the other hand, Plaintiff A, C, D, E, F, and 374 others (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant under Jeju District Court 201Guhap1003, but was sentenced to a judgment against the Defendant on May 30, 2012, and the Gwangju High Court ( Jeju) 2012Nu296 and Supreme Court 2013Du10427, which were all dismissed.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including additional evidence, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We decide on the defendant's main defense of safety.