1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On March 27, 2018, the Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in aggregate extraction and manufacturing business, filed for registration of aggregate extraction and crushing business (hereinafter “registration of this case”) and registration of land aggregate extraction business, and filed for registration of forest aggregate extraction business on August 6, 2018, respectively. On August 28, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a report on the selection and crushing of aggregate as follows with the Plaintiff:

The place where a structure subject to a report is installed: The type of facility installed (Occupancy and use): 4,966 square meters per day for each aggregate line: The production period of 360 square meters per annum and the annual production period of 43,200 square meters: The production period from August 2018 to August 30, 2021: From September 20, 2018 to August 30, 2021: the defendant accepted the report, along with “matters to be observed based on the report on selection and crushing of aggregate” that includes the following:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant report”). Any matter contrary to other Acts and subordinate statutes shall be subject to prior permission, reporting, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

- Reporting on fugitive dust generation: A report on the installation of a discharging facility under Article 43 of the Clean Air Conservation Act - A report on the installation of a facility must be made pursuant to Article 33 of the Water Environment Conservation Act - A report on the installation of a structure: A report on the installation of a structure: A report on installation of a structure under Article 118 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, Article 41 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 52 of the Construction Ordinance of the Armed Forces: A report on installation of a structure subject to permission: The defendant issued the first corrective order, on December 13, 2018, to order the restoration to the original state on the ground that the plaintiff installed a facility for screening and crushing of aggregate (hereinafter referred to as “instant facility”) without permission for development, on the ground that the plaintiff did not comply with such order.

If the Plaintiff did not comply with each of the above corrective orders, the Defendant did not comply with the order on April 30, 2019, such as the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).