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 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to occupy and use a road for the construction of a bridge (Bridge, hereinafter “instant bridge”) to secure an access road (hereinafter “instant river site”). The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to occupy and use a road for Crossing-gun C and one parcel, other than D, and one parcel (hereinafter “instant river site”).

B. On September 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) on September 12, 2016, the occupation and use of a river to meet the requirements for authorization and permission under other Acts, such as the Building Act, etc., was exclusively carried out by an individual, thereby hindering the public use of a river; or (b) is likely to exercise

(hereinafter referred to as "the Disposition in this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 3 and 4 (including numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she abused discretion can contribute the instant bridge to the crossing-gun so that many and unspecified persons can freely use it. Therefore, the instant disposition denying the Plaintiff’s application for permission for occupation and use of rivers is unlawful since it deviatess from and abused discretion. 2) The Plaintiff, who violated the principle of protection of trust, requested prior to the application for permission for occupation and use of rivers, requested prior to the application for permission for occupation and use of rivers, and the Defendant sent a reply that permission for occupation and use of rivers can be granted if necessary to supplement measures against the risk of water pollution due

The plaintiff trusted the defendant's response and conducted bridge shop design and various authorizing design services.

Nevertheless, it is illegal that the defendant's permission of occupancy and use of rivers was denied for reasons different from those of the supplement of the prior review.

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

C. The River Act, which determines the abuse of discretionary power, promotes the benefits of river use and eco-friendly rivers.