1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In around 2008, the Plaintiff is a person who occupied and used the said river after obtaining permission to occupy and use the 1,782 square meters of the river located in Kuju-si B (a neighboring lot C; hereinafter “the instant application site”).

On October 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for extension of the permission to occupy and use rivers with the Defendant, but the Defendant rejected the application for extension of the permission to occupy and use rivers on January 16, 2013 on the ground that “the Plaintiff installed and used illegal facilities (residential assembly building) in the river site without permission.”

B. On June 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to occupy and use the “road and site” on the instant application site. On June 25, 2013, the Defendant issued a notification of non-permission to occupy and use the instant application site on the ground that “the instant application site was installed in violation of Article 33 of the River Act and used without permission, and that it was notified several times of restitution to the Plaintiff, but has not been reinstated until now.” (c) On October 18, 2013, when the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the first disposition was pending, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the permission to occupy and use the “road and site” again to the Defendant on the instant application site. However, on October 22, 2013, the Defendant occupied and used the instant river in the future, which is included in the river maintenance project in the river maintenance project for Jeju-do rearrangement project.

“On the ground that the permission for occupation and use of rivers was not granted (hereinafter “the second disposition”). D.

Therefore, on December 24, 2013, the Plaintiff again obtained the initial occupancy permit from the Defendant on December 24, 2013, even though the occupancy area stated in the application for the occupancy permit from December 24, 2013, is 1,790 square meters, as seen thereafter, the Plaintiff was originally granted the occupancy permit from around 207.