1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a company established on March 12, 198 for the purpose of ice manufacturing business, etc., obtained permission from the Defendant on September 19, 1990 to occupy and use public waters 386.34 square meters of public waters in Changwon-si Masan-si B branch line (hereinafter “instant public waters”), and installed ice ice ice tower (hereinafter “instant ice ice tower”) on the instant public waters with the extension of permission to occupy and use public waters from around that time to August 14, 2017.

B. On July 27, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the instant public waters were incorporated into the sections of the Mapo-gu Public Waters Construction Project for the Prevention of Disasters (hereinafter “instant construction”) and the extension of the permission to occupy and use the public waters was not possible, and thus, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the instant public waters should be restored

C. On September 1, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of permission to occupy and use the public waters of this case to the Defendant. However, on September 7, 2017, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application with the purport that the extension of permission to occupy and use the public waters of this case is impossible for the Plaintiff on the ground that

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the disposition of this case is unlawful, since it is a defect that deviates from or abused discretionary power for the following reasons.

1. In around 198, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant to occupy and use the public waters of this case for the installation of a chain ice tower necessary for business operations. From that time, the Plaintiff obtained permission to occupy and use the public waters of this case for about twenty years.

According to Article 11 (1) of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act, a wharf, a breakwater, a high volume, a floodgate, a new and renewable energy facility, and a building.