1. On November 28, 2012, the order issued by the Defendant to suspend the business of screening and crushing aggregate against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 20, 2012, the Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s report on the selection and crushing of aggregate (the place where a structure is installed: the place where the structure is installed: the Sinyang-si 513-3 (hereinafter “instant application site”) and granted the following repair conditions:

9. The ownership of selective scrapers shall be transferred by October 20, 2012 in the name of the plaintiff, and all kinds of work facilities, such as selective scrap scrapers, shall be installed at the relevant place of business until the mid-term order of November 2012;

b. The suspension of business and the revocation of the registration of aggregate extraction business pursuant to Article 32(3) and Article 30(3) of the Aggregate Extraction Act at the time of their passage. 10. The 10.m. (b) includes the following: (a) vibration and dust scattering that may arise from the screening or crushing of aggregate within the area subject to the restriction; (c) the details of the report should be implemented; and (d) the matters subject to the restriction and conditions of the permission may be revoked and altered at the time

However, as a result of the Defendant’s confirmation of the instant application on November 22, 2012 and November 26, 2012, it was found that there was a storage facility of 395 square meters, which is used by a third party on the said application site (hereinafter “instant warehouse facility”) unlike the description of the business plan, there was no installed aggregate scrapers, etc.

C. On November 28, 2012, the Defendant issued an order to suspend all business of screening and crushing aggregate (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff, including the establishment of related facilities (e.g., screening and crushing, etc.”) as follows:

Related laws: Reasons for suspending Article 30 of the Aggregate Extraction Act: The period for non-performance of the conditions for accepting the report granted and the suspension of non-conformity with the project plan: The fact that there is no dispute between November 28, 2012 and the date of separate notification [based on recognition] from November 28, 2012, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion purchase of aggregate scrapers from Nonparty A.