1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Where two or more persons jointly obtain a license or permit, or make a report on a reported fishery under this Act, under Article 7 (1) of the Fisheries Act, jointly with ten or more persons of the local village residents in Sejong-si, the father of the defendant shall designate one of them as a representative and additionally state the application or report in addition thereto;

Pursuant to this, the Defendant was the representative of the instant fishing right after the Defendant’s father’s death, with respect to the fishing right (license number G; hereinafter “instant fishing right”).

B. Around 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract with E to set the exercise fee of the instant fishery right as KRW 80 million and received the exercise fee from E.

C. On March 2015, the Plaintiff and D Village Youth Chairperson requested the Defendant to return the instant right to exercise the fishery right from E and grant it to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the defendant had a return intention to E around that time, but the defendant rejected the return intention to E in full.

On April 2015, the plaintiff and the F made the above request again to the defendant at the restaurant operated by the defendant, and the defendant around that time delivered the same contents by telephone to E, but they already rejected the request due to the reason that E spreads off the crings at the model which is the object of the fishery right of this case.

E. Meanwhile, on April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100 million to the Defendant’s account, KRW 40 million on April 27, 2015, and KRW 160 million on May 6, 2015, and KRW 100 million on April 30, 2015, and KRW 20 million on May 3, 2015, the Defendant transferred the money that the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff to F, respectively.

Since then, F is proposing to offer to E the exercise of the fishery right of this case as KRW 160 million, which is a double the exercise fee of the fishery right paid by E in contact with E.