1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s harbor works against the Plaintiff on July 25, 2018.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, and it is identical to the statement in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the case where "the legitimacy of the refusal of this case" among the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 9 to No. 5) is used as the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

The “harbor Act” of the fourth 12th parallel is the former Harbor Act (amended by Act No. 16287, Jan. 15, 2019; hereinafter “harbor Act”).

)』으로 고치고, 제16쪽(별지) 제2행의 '▣ 항만법'을 『▣ 구 항만법(2019. 1. 15. 법률 제16287호로 개정되기 전의 것)』으로 고친다.

2. Whether the refusal of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant asserted that the instant harbor facility is within the jurisdiction of the Incheon Harbor Corporation, and Article 27(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act (hereinafter “instant provision”).

A) The instant refusal was made on the ground that the Port Authority established pursuant to Article 4 of the Port Authority Act constitutes “harbor facilities under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority.” However, the concept of “harbor facilities within the jurisdiction of the Port Authority” and “harbor facilities under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority” is distinguishable. The Incheon Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Authority (hereinafter “Macheon Office”).

(2) As long as the right to manage harbor facilities of this case is not invested in the Incheon Port Authority, the Incheon Port Authority cannot collect user fees of the instant harbor facilities, it cannot be deemed that the instant harbor facilities fall under the jurisdiction of the Incheon Port Authority. Since the instant harbor facilities do not fall under the “harbor facilities under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority established under Article 4 of the Port Authority Act” of the provisions of this case, the instant refusal act based on different premise is unlawful. (2) The Defendant’s assertion is unlawful.