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

A. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for establishment of a mining right (Yancheon Cadastral H) with respect to Kimcheon-si C (W through E, G from latitude to G, area of 278) and submitted a mineral deposit description on March 29, 2011.

Accordingly, on June 21, 201, the Defendant issued a non-permission on the establishment of mining rights (hereinafter referred to as “previous disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “In accordance with the Plaintiff’s consent to the establishment of mining rights on the grounds that part of the mining area of the Gimcheon-si and the applied mining area conflict with the designated area of the I.S. Tourist Complex, which is a public interest obstacle area, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to prepare a separate mineral deposit description for the remaining area except the area of the Dong Tourism Complex and submit it until June 7, 2011.”

B. The Plaintiff raised an objection and received a recommendation to recommend correction from the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission on October 31, 201, and on March 19, 2012 from the Mining Coordination Commission, respectively.

C. Accordingly, on October 5, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition of non-permission to establish a mining right (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the result of requesting the analysis of mineral ingredients after the results of the survey of the mine site investigation is found to fall short of the “mining business size and dignity standards” (not less than 2g/t, not less than 80g/t) under Article 20 of the Mining Business Guidelines (Notice of Ministry of Knowledge Economy),” following a field investigation (hereinafter “the first field investigation”) on September 4, 2012. D. The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition on January 7, 2013, and filed an objection (the first appeal was filed, but transferred to the Mining Coordination Committee). However, on July 4, 2013, the Defendant received a decision of dismissal from the Mining Coordination Committee on September 13, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) As to the legality of the on-site investigation, J of Mining Professional Engineers is legitimate.