1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 19, 201, the Plaintiff (former WW Co., Ltd.) completed the registration of transfer of mining right (registration number) from November 14, 201 to November 13, 2018 with respect to the Gangnam-gun S, T, and U mining land register G in the name of the Plaintiff (former representative director of the Plaintiff), Jin-gun, Jin-gun, and Jinjin-gun, T, and U, with D, and completed the registration of aggregate extraction business on August 12, 201.

- The place of gathering: The area occupied and used within the main line (attached Form 1-1, 1-2; hereinafter referred to as “the area subject to gathering” in this case) from among the mining and cadastral G - the area of 93,000 square meters (1,000 square meters per day, 1,000 square meters per day, 10,000 cubic meters per month, 100,000 cubic meters per year, 100,000 cubic meters per year - the total estimated amount to be collected - the aggregate amount of 189,794 cubic meters per annum: 5 years from the date of permission;

B. On January 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to recover marine aggregates with the following content (hereinafter “instant application for permission”).

C. On March 5, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff, which rejected the application for permission of this case for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

1) First, Article 22(3) of the Aggregate Extraction Act provides that "where a zone subject to permission for aggregate extraction falls under a zone in which the extraction of aggregate is prohibited pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes, permission for aggregate extraction shall not be granted, and Article 52(3)2 of the Fishery Resources Management Act provides that "any of the grounds for prohibition of permission in relation to the restriction on activities in a fishery resources protection zone exists, one of the grounds for prohibition of permission." Since the entire sea area in which the instant extraction zone is included is designated as a fishery resources protection zone, the submission of the instant application for permission would hinder B from achieving the purpose of designating B as a fishery resources protection zone. Second, Article 8(1)6 of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act (hereinafter "Public Waters Act").