1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons why the court accepted the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (including the attached Form, 3. Conclusion) except for the dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it shall be accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third part of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance agreed to remove “on November 29, 2016 due to the failure to remove.” The Defendant notified the Plaintiff on November 10, 2016 that it is impossible for the Plaintiff to create a coastal book, etc. on the ground of the failure to do so.”

The following shall be added to the fifth and seventh classes of the first instance judgment:

Article 8(1) of the Public Waters Management Act includes not only the new construction of a wharf but also the removal of a wharf subject to permission to occupy and use public waters. As long as the Defendant permitted the Plaintiff to occupy and use public waters for the new construction of the wharf, it is also necessary to permit the Plaintiff to occupy and use and use the relevant public waters. However, the Defendant’s refusal disposition of this case is unlawful as it violates Article 8(1) of the Public Waters Management Act, and the imposition disposition of indemnity of this case, which is based on the premise thereof, shall be revoked unlawfully. The following is added to seven following the fifth sentence of the first instance judgment.

In addition, according to Article 13 (1) 1 of the Public Waters Management Act and Article 14 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when occupying and using a wharf for a non-profit business for the public interest, the Defendant issued the disposition to impose the occupation and use fees of this case to the Plaintiff although the occupation and use fees of this case should be fully reduced or exempted, and the disposition to impose the occupation and use fees of this case should be revoked illegally. The following must be added to the 7th page

The Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” refers to the instant wharf from July 2016 to May 2017.