1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 18, 2018, the Plaintiff, from around 1999, was a person who operated scooice, etc. in the course of operating the Egypt in Gangwon-gun, and filed an application for permission to occupy and use C fishery harbor facilities in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Defendant on September 18, 2018 in order to install a temporary building and use it as the office and rest space of the said Egypt.

B. On October 11, 2018, the Defendant rendered a non-permission disposition against the Plaintiff on the grounds as follows (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

It is believed that the disposition to permit the use and occupation of fishery harbor facilities has a big impact on the social order and public welfare, and directly infringes on the purpose of the existence of fishery harbor facilities, and that the result of gathering the opinions of fishing village fraternities falls under the administrative act of third party effective, and the non-permission of the use and occupation of fishery harbor facilities for civil petitioners is not implemented in the state of non-permission of the use and occupation of fishery harbor facilities as a result of the comprehensive review in order to achieve the purpose of maintaining, managing and operating

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s motion of this case was presented by the FF fishing village fraternity in the absence of any special reason to refuse the Plaintiff’s motion of this case, and the disposition of this case should be revoked as it deviates from and abused discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the respective statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, and the overall purport of arguments, are as follows: ① The plaintiff has used and occupied the fishery harbor facilities of this case from around 1999, and operated Egypt.