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 January 1, 2009, the Plaintiffs obtained permission to occupy and use public waters (hereinafter “instant permission”) from the Defendant as follows, and the said permission site was “the instant permission site.”

Plaintiff A’s occupation and use of land for the purpose of occupation and use of 1,417 square meters of land for 1,350 square meters of land for the purpose of occupation and use, occupation and use of other land, and other occupation and use period of land for the purpose of occupation and use, from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2013, the condition of permission from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2013, the land used for other occupation and use shall not interfere with others’ passage, and the revocation of permission or necessary measures may be taken at the time of violation.

B. On the instant permitted land, artificial structures (claters), trees, stones, etc. (hereinafter “instant facilities”) are installed depending on the boundary of F land, as shown in the attached Table 200.

C. On May 6, 2013, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiffs to remove and relocate the instant facilities on the ground that the instant facilities cause interference with the management of public waters pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act (hereinafter “Public Waters Management Act”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 5-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) Unlike the defendant's assertion, the facilities of this case are not newly installed by the plaintiffs, and they do not interfere with other's passage. Accordingly, the disposition of this case is unlawful since there is no ground for it. 2) The defendant has obtained permission to occupy and use the facilities of this case before the permission of this case was granted, and it violates the principle of protection of trust to order removal and removal of the above facilities.

3 If the facility of this case is removed, the permission and land F in this case.