2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

A. On July 7, 2014, the Plaintiff issued an administrative disposition against the Plaintiff to remove and close a cemetery and a private charnel facility installed in the instant forest. The said administrative disposition is not only procedural defect, such as not presenting specific grounds for disposition, but also the Plaintiff, who is not the relative or developer of the graveyard and a private charnel facility installed in the instant forest, should be revoked on the ground that it is unlawful and unlawful.

B. As to this, the Defendant did not take any administrative disposition as alleged by the Plaintiff, and provided that, on July 7, 2014, the Social Welfare and-873, the Defendant provided guidance that the relocation of a cemetery and a private charnel facility installed in the instant forest needs to be taken, and even if it is an administrative disposition, the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since it revoked ex officio on August 20, 2014, even if it is deemed an administrative disposition.

2. Article 14(1)3 and (3) of the Act on Funeral Services, Etc. provides that where a person, other than the State, a Mayor/Do Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, intends to establish and manage a clan cemetery, he/she shall obtain permission from the Mayor, etc. having jurisdiction over the relevant cemetery, and Article 15(1) of the same Act provides that where a person, other than a Mayor/Do Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, intends to establish and operate a charnel facility, he/she shall report such charnel facility to the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu. Article 31 subparag. 1 and 2 of the former Funeral Services, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 13108, Jan. 28, 2015) provides that the head of a Si, etc. may order the relative or developer of the cemetery or charnel facility established in violation of Articles 14(3) and 15, to relocate or close the relevant cemetery or charnel facility to the Plaintiff.