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 April 20, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to occupy and use rivers for cultivation with respect to the 1,114 square meters of river B in Jeon Chang-gun, Jeon Chang-gun (hereinafter “the instant river site”). On May 18, 2010, the Defendant granted the Plaintiff permission to occupy and use the instant river site until September 30, 2012, with the period of permission as to the Plaintiff.

On November 5, 2012, the Defendant permitted the Plaintiff to extend the period of occupation and use, and the Defendant permitted the Plaintiff to extend the period of permission on December 31, 2016. The Plaintiff’s permission period for occupation and use of rivers expired due to the expiration of the said permission period.

B. Around September 9, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a petition that the Plaintiff operates a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in the name of “C” and uses the instant river site. On January 6, 2017, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff and notified the Plaintiff of the voluntary removal of the facility by February 16, 2017.

C. On February 24, 2017, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff did not take corrective measures, and visited the instant restaurant and consulted several times, the Plaintiff responded to the purport that he would transfer the restaurant, and did not comply with the corrective measures.

On May 26, 2017, the Defendant, on May 26, 2017, ordered the Plaintiff to conduct a vicarious administrative execution by failing to comply with the corrective order on unlawful matters within the river area (D) zone, with the purport that the Plaintiff shall perform vicarious execution, if the Plaintiff fails to remove and restore the outflow, flat, etc. installed in the instant river site by June 30, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Jeollabuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission, and on September 28, 2017, the Jeollabuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. As to the counter-party of the 1st claim of the Plaintiff, the counter-party of the 1 disposition.