1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B has been maintaining a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff’s mother C for about 20 years since around 1996, and from around 1996, B had been engaged in fishery while living in the water-based bar line located in the neighboring Eshore in Kimhae-si D (hereinafter “the instant branch line”), see the following photographs.

B. Around November 26, 2015, the Defendant received a written petition that the Defendant’s officials under the Defendant’s control over the bareboat lines illegally installed on the E coast, and the Defendant’s officials conducted a field investigation on December 2, 2015, stating that the Plaintiff himself is the owner of the bareboat lines in the process.

C. On December 16, 2015 and February 2, 2016, the Defendant took measures to voluntarily remove the instant bio-line, which was installed without permission to occupy and use rivers, pursuant to Articles 69(1)1 and 33(1)3 of the River Act, to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not comply therewith.

On April 6, 2016, the Defendant: (a) illegally installed the instant sub-subsidiary line without permission to occupy and use the rivers; and (b) filed a criminal charge against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff violated Article 95 Subparag. 5 and Article 33(1)3 of the River Act; and (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a suspended sentence by confessioning

(Seoul District Court 2016 Gowon District Court 2016Da5599, Changwon District Court 2016No2030, and the above judgment was finalized on January 20, 2017; hereinafter referred to as "relevant criminal case"). E.

On November 2, 2016, December 21, 2016, and March 23, 2017, the Defendant provided that the Plaintiff would carry out administrative vicarious execution if he/she did not voluntarily remove the instant grassland to the Plaintiff on March 23, 2017. However, the Plaintiff still failed to comply therewith, and did not dispute that he/she is not the owner.

F. Ultimately, on July 11, 2017, the Defendant removed the instant grassland in accordance with Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, and on September 26, 2017, issued a disposition imposing KRW 17,300,000 for expenses for vicarious administrative execution following the removal of the instant grassland in accordance with Article 5 of the same Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).