1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff had been operating a fishing place in the same place after obtaining a permit for a fishing place business from April 15, 2013 to December 31, 2015 with respect to the total area of 0.5 square meters (0.42 square meters) from the Ansan City J (K reservoir) from the Ansan City market.

B. On April 7, 2015, the Defendants, who set up a farm house near the above fishing place, filed a civil petition with the head of Ansan City Mayor stating that “When there is a water reservoir intending to catch water for the purpose of raising the level of water to prepare for droughts, the Plaintiff was unable to lock up the water tank with the view to the Plaintiff, and to improve the level of water to prepare for droughts. The above fishing place users are causing inconvenience to the passage of the residents of the village by building vehicles on the road, causing inconvenience to the traffic of the users of the above fishing place, and they are committing tort, such as creating a road by damaging the oil reservoir and damaging the mountain.” The Defendants filed a civil petition with the purport of revoking the permission for the above fishing place business.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for a permit to extend the term of validity of fishing place business with the Ansan City Mayor after the expiration of the period of validity of the above fishing place business, but the Ansan City Mayor may use agricultural infrastructure for purposes other than the original purpose or use pursuant to Article 23(2) of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act to the extent that the use of agricultural infrastructure does not interfere with the original purpose or use of the reservoir. As such, inconvenience such as

‘Disposition' was taken.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the above civil petition filing by the Defendants constituted tort, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.