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

A. On April 6, 2004, the Defendant accepted a report of hot spring discovery in B on April 6, 2004 (C 2,409 square meters in Si, Si, and on April 22, 2004, accepted the report of hot spring discovery in D 464.5 square meters in the above D 464.5 square meters.

(2) On March 4, 2005, the date of the instant report was designated as the “E Hot Spring Resource Protection Zone” on the following grounds: (a) each of the above lands was “the instant report site”; and (b) each of the above repair dispositions was designated as “the instant repair disposition.”

B. F acquired the ownership of the instant reported site through an auction on November 15, 2012, and became the rightful priority holder of the hot spring pursuant to Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Hot Spring Act.

C. When a civil petition for requesting the cancellation of the designation of a hot spring source protection zone was filed with the Defendant, the Defendant, on January 21, 2015, requested F to present its opinion on the cancellation of the instant repair disposition, and notified F of the revocation of the acceptance of the report of hot spring discovery on February 16, 2015.

Since then on March 24, 2015, the defendant presented a written opinion that F will establish and implement a hot spring development plan, and the defendant demanded F to prepare and supplement specific development plans and relevant documentary evidence on March 25, 2015, and September 18, 2015.

However, F has failed to submit particular plans or data until October 9, 2015, which was the time limit for the request for supplementation.

Accordingly, on July 22, 2016, the Defendant held a hearing to revoke the acceptance of a report of hot spring discovery to F, and as a result of the hearing, the Defendant decided to suspend the disposal of the instant repair disposition as the revocation of the instant repair disposition if the Defendant did not file an application for approval by establishing an actual hot spring development plan through the procedures prescribed in the Hot Spring Act within six months.

E. Meanwhile, around January 2017, residents in the E Hot Spring Protection Zone filed a petition with the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant repair disposition by neglecting the report of this case for a long time after the instant repair disposition to the Defendant, thereby restricting the exercise of property rights by local residents. On March 17, 2017, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission seeks revocation of the instant repair disposition.