The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The permission to occupy and use public waters under the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act (hereinafter “Public Waters Act”) is a disposition to grant a specific person the exclusive right to use public waters, and the decision of whether or not to grant the exclusive right to use public waters is, in principle, belonging to the discretion of an administrative agency. Such discretionary disposition is not unlawful unless there is an error in the fact-finding, which serves as the basis for exercising the discretionary power, or there is an error in the application of the relevant statutes.

(2) According to the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 219, Jan. 5, 2017; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Public Waters Act”), a person who intends to occupy or use (hereinafter “use”) public waters for a specific purpose shall obtain an occupancy or use permit from the management agency of public waters, and obtain such permit, and a person who intends to obtain such permit shall submit an application for permission accompanied by a business plan, old map, design drawings, etc.

Meanwhile, according to the relevant provisions of the Public Waters Act, if there is a person who has a certain right likely to be injured due to permission, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "person entitled to occupancy or use of public waters"), the management agency of public waters shall not, in principle, grant permission, etc. (Article 12), marine environment, ecosystem, fishery resources, and natural landscape protection.