1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff was a company that engages in aggregate sales, stone processing, etc., and obtained permission from the Defendant with respect to the area of 107,800 square meters (hereinafter “instant permitted site”) within 2,000 square meters of the same year from the Defendant with respect to the instant permitted site, the purpose of which was to grant permission was to store goods inside the area of 2,000 square meters, and the period of business from June 23, 2014 to June 30, 2016. The following permission was granted to engage in development activities that impose a burden on the terms and conditions of permission for development activities (hereinafter “instant permission”).

-The timing of attention is to prevent noise, vibration, and dust scattering caused by earth and sand operations and the transport of soil and sand, such as cutting off.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 133 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, in any of the following cases, the cancellation of permission, authorization, etc., suspension of construction, reconstruction or relocation of structures, etc., or other necessary dispositions or measures under this Act may be ordered:

A person who violates the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and any order issued or disposition taken under this Act.

(c)If the continued implementation of the development activities or an urban planning facility project is deemed to seriously undermine the public interest due to a change in circumstances, it shall be implemented after obtaining permission for the development activities (change) in accordance with Article 56, paragraph 2, of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

B. On June 13, 2014, prior to the instant development activity permission, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant to use State property on the 795 square meters of land in the 1058-8 land in the East Sea for the purpose of access to the instant permitted site.

C. After that, on September 18, 2014, the Defendant revoked the above permission for use on the ground that the land above 1058-8 was not the property managed by the Defendant.

On January 5, 2015, the Defendant entered aggregate in the Plaintiff’s site or installed aggregate sorting machinery outside the instant permitted site, and issued a corrective order therefor.