1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

On November 21, 2018, the defendant against the plaintiff B (20 tons) and C (23 tons).

1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 12, and 13, and Eul evidence No. 1 (including the number of branches where no special indication is made; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole pleadings, and there is no counter-proof.

On May 14, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained permission for fishery business in a demarcated zone in the D branch line in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun on May 14, 201 (Full fishing H) and used E (1.07 tons) as a control line for the management of the above fishing ground.

On August 16, 2018, the Plaintiff obtained a license for political net fishing (I, 30 tons for the Ulsan-gun fishery license) and used B (20 tons) and C (23 tons) as a control vessel for the control of the above fishing ground.

B. On November 21, 2018, the Defendant issued the first warning against the Plaintiff on the ground that “Around 11:40 and around 11:50 on October 21, 2018, the Plaintiff used B and C beyond the license area, which is the license area, constitutes a violation of Article 27(1) of the Fisheries Act, where a fishery right holder had a fishing right holder designate a management vessel and use it for a fishing control area,” and issued a disposition of suspension of each fishery on the said fishing vessel for 30 days (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(A) No. 1-2) On November 22, 2018, the Defendant, stating that “the holder of fishery right must use the control line in the designated fishing ground area,” revised the applicable Acts and subordinate statutes stated in the instant disposition under Article 47(4) of the Fisheries Act.

(A) Evidence No. 1-4, 5). (c)

The statutes related to the disposition of this case are as shown in attached Form 1.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The non-existence of the reason for disposition is that the Plaintiff obtained a permit from the Defendant to change a political zone from the former D branch line to the F branch line, and thus, it is necessary to newly install a fishing net in the altered fishing ground zone. Accordingly, the Plaintiff used B and C only for transporting an anchor for fixing the fishing network to the above changed fishing ground zone. Thus, the said fishing vessel is deemed to have been used.