The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is operating the instant car page with the trade name “H” (hereinafter “the instant car page”) in Gyeyang-gun E, F, and G land (hereinafter “instant land”).

The land of this case is adjacent to D, which is a local river located in Gyeyang-gun.

Of the instant land, E is a state-owned land, and G and F land were owned by the Plaintiff’s mother-friendly I, and ownership was transferred to Gyeonggi-do on September 17, 2007 due to the acquisition of consultation on public land related to river improvement projects.

On December 31, 2019, the Defendant publicly announced the determination of the river master plan (re-establishment) with respect to 13 rivers including B, etc., and publicly announced the designation of a local river (section) and the alteration thereof, the determination of a river area (the alteration and abolition thereof), and the determination of a topographical map (hereinafter “the determination of the instant river area”).

The river area determined as above also includes the land of this case.

On May 20, 2020, the number of Gyeyang-gun was “A person who intends to perform an act within a river area pursuant to Article 33 of the River Act with a local river area as a river area” and “the Plaintiff installed illegal structures without permission from the river management agency” (hereinafter referred to as “the ground for recognition”) by June 12, 2020. There is no dispute regarding the original restoration order by June 12, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as “original restoration order”). Each entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 and 2 evidence No. 1 and 2 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the entire pleadings, and the decision of the river area of this case as to the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the whole pleadings is invalid due to significant and apparent defects in the decision of the river area of this case, and is also unlawful.

The defendant's prior defense of the merits was not eligible to dispute the decision of the river area of this case because it was merely an indirect or factual and economic interest in the decision of the river area of this case.

To this end, knife, .