1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. On June 27, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted a inland fisheries report to the Defendant pursuant to Article 11 of the Inland Water Fisheries Act and Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in order to operate a “water-type inland fish farming” by using water drawn up in the river water flowing from the land B, etc. owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant river water”).

B. Accordingly, the Defendant had gone through consultation with the water surface manager of the instant river pursuant to Article 12 of the Inland Water Fisheries Act. On July 9, 2013, the person in charge of the relevant department of three-party markets, who is the water surface manager, falls under the subject of permission to occupy and use flowing water even if the water flows out of the above land C, which is personal possession. As such, the Defendant sent a reply that the permission to occupy and use flowing water is impossible because there exists a civil petition filed by residents of the lower reaches a concern over shortage of water volume and pollution.

C. On July 29, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to the Plaintiff on the ground that the acceptance of the instant inland fishery report was impossible on the ground that the Plaintiff was notified by the water surface manager of the instant river water of the consultation that the use of the instant river water was impossible.

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] Gap's 1, 2, 6, Gap's 4-3, Eul's 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Under Article 11 of the Inland Water Fisheries Act and Article 9(2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant’s acceptance of inland water fisheries should be accepted at the time of the applicant’s filing of the report by a indecent act, not by discretionary act, and cannot be decided or rejected. 2) The Plaintiff purchased land B and C at the Defendant’s request and constructed a aquaculture, and the number of inflows flowing into the Plaintiff’s aquaculture was entirely discharged into the Plaintiff’s farm farm. Thus, there is no room for the shortage of water volume.