1. On August 3, 2016, the Defendant’s fishing ground for the fish farming of solar fish C, D, E, F, and G shellfish with respect to the fishery partnership corporation B on August 3, 2016.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 19, 2016, the Defendant publicly announced an application for decision on the priority order of granting fishery licenses for the same fishing ground as indicated in the following table (hereinafter “each fishing ground of this case”).

H

B. On June 2016, the Plaintiff, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”), the I fishing village fraternity, and the J fishing village fraternity filed an application with the Defendant for a decision on the priority order of fishery licenses regarding each of the instant fishing grounds.

C. The Defendant held a fisheries mediation committee and deliberated on the order of priority of fishery license of the Plaintiff, Intervenor, I fishing village fraternity, and J fishing village fraternity. The Defendant decided that the Intervenor is the operator of licensed fishery business for five years prior to the date of application under Article 13(1)1 of the Fisheries Act.

Accordingly, on August 3, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to grant a fishery license for each fishing ground of this case to the Intervenor from August 3, 2016 to August 2, 2017 by setting the license term to the period from August 3, 2016.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The defendant's judgment on the main defense of this case alleged that "it is expected to grant a fishery license to the intervenor once again pursuant to Article 9 (4) of the Fisheries Act even if the disposition of this case is revoked, so there is no benefit to dispute the disposition of this case." However, as long as the disposition of this case is not revoked and effective, the plaintiff has legal interest in dispute.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition was unlawful even if the Intervenor does not fall under the operator of the licensed fishery business for five years before the date of application under Article 13(1)1 of the Fisheries Act.

(b) the relevant laws and subordinate statutes;