1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 22, 2003, Plaintiff A obtained permission for possession of one unit of air gun (5.0m m., shot gun and shot gun) from the Defendant, and obtained a hunting license from the head of Young-si Port Office around December 2014.

Plaintiff

B obtained a hunting license from the head of the Suwon-si District Office around August 2013, and around March 4, 2015, the defendant obtained permission to possess one air gun (the gun and the shot police: 5.0 meters).

B. On April 7, 2015, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff A, and on April 8, 2015, to the Plaintiff B, respectively, an order to submit the Plaintiff’s firearms held by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant guns”) based on Article 47(2) of the former Act on the Safety Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc. (amended by Act No. 13429, Jul. 24, 2015; hereinafter “former Act”) and Article 70-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act to the effect that they may keep the instant guns in custody of the Defendant’s weapons (hereinafter “instant order of custody”).

C. Plaintiff A submitted the instant gun to the Defendant on May 28, 2015, and Plaintiff B submitted the instant gun to the Defendant on June 15, 2015, respectively, and thereafter, the Defendant kept it in custody until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the custody order of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) According to Article 47(1)3 and 47(2) of the former Inspection and Control Act, the permitting agency may issue a custody order where there is a need to maintain public safety. However, there is no ground for the fact that the Plaintiffs are likely to cause firearms accidents by possessing the instant guns, and thus, it is not necessary to issue a custody order for the purpose of maintaining public safety. 2) The instant custody order, compared to the public interest to be achieved by this, considerably exceeds the discretionary power, was abused or abused, since the infringement of private interests, such as the exercise of the Plaintiffs’ property rights

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. The need to maintain the public safety for determination 1.