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

A. The Plaintiff is a stock company that runs the business of picking aggregate and manufacturing aggregate.

B. On July 22, 2016, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on the following: (a) on four lots of land, such as luminous 880-1, etc. in the Jeonsung-gun Labor site of Jeonsung-gun (hereinafter “instant site”); (b) the Plaintiff installed mobile strawer, aggregate sorting machine, container strawls, and aggregate sprinking equipment; and (c) installed soil stations that flown in the neighboring project site by selecting aggregate.

C. On August 29, 2016, the Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s report on the selection and washing of aggregate in accordance with Article 32 of the Aggregate Extraction Act and Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and, upon receiving the Plaintiff’s report on the selection and washing of aggregate, provided that “the selection and washing of aggregate is not possible and the acceptance of the report is revoked in the event

After November 10, 2017, the Defendant revoked the aggregate washing part among the acceptance of the report made on August 29, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not register the washing business, and the Defendant fulfilled the conditions of “outboard washing and crushing, and revocation of the acceptance of the report in the event of violation”.

E. On May 1, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act of crushing aggregate was verified at the time of the on-site inspection of the aggregate screening place conducted on March 16, 2018 and April 5, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspending the selection of aggregate for one month (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 31(1)5 of the Aggregate Extraction Act and Article 32-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act against the Plaintiff on May 1, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the Defendant should have sufficiently examined the records of the hearing, the opinions of the presiding official of the hearing, and other relevant documents before reaching the instant disposition, the Defendant immediately violated the Administrative Procedures Act by promptly taking the instant disposition on the date of the hearing.

B. The Plaintiff performed pulverization, which is accompanied with marina sand, to the extent that it is well attached thereto.