2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The status and relationship 1) Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”)

Defendant E is a company that operates aggregate extraction business, etc., and is a director of the Defendant Company (hereinafter the following):

B. At the time of concluding a sales contract for the part, the only internal director of the Defendant Company was the sole internal director.

2) F and Plaintiff C are as follows:

B. As seen in this part, the Defendant Company purchased the extracting rights from the Defendant Company, and F died on March 20, 2017.

The heir of F is the plaintiff A (spouse) and B.

B. On May 9, 201, the Defendant Company entered into a sales contract for the instant extracting rights with F and Plaintiff C, selling the extracting rights (registration number: J, mining name: gold, and hereinafter “the instant extracting rights”) to the mining area (hereinafter “the instant mining area”) extending over the 224 fourth parallel parallel B, H, I, and I (hereinafter “the instant mining area”) (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”), and registered the transfer of the instant extracting rights to F and Plaintiff C on the same day.

C. On June 8, 2007, the Defendant Company received an application from the head of the budget office to permit development activities for the purpose of the Act on the Collection, Collection, Recovery of By-products, and Collection of Earth and Stone with respect to the mining area of this case (hereinafter “existing development activities”). At the time of the instant sales contract, the Defendant Company shall engage in development activities within the mining area of this case (hereinafter “existing development activities”).

(2) The Defendant Company received a completion inspection on the existing development activities on January 14, 2013, when approximately one year and eight months elapsed from the time of the instant sales contract, from the budget head of the Gun, on the following grounds: (a) in the absence of the completion inspection on the existing development activities, the extraction right holder could not obtain permission on the new development activities within the instant mining area; (b) the Defendant Company received a completion inspection on the existing development activities.

One of the revocation of the extracting rights of this case is to determine the period when the extracting right holder intends to suspend the extraction for a period of at least one year.