1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

1. Basic facts

A. After the instant mining right was registered under B’s name on October 22, 2001, the mining right of this case was registered under the name of the Intervenor to the Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) on September 16, 2006.

B. 1) On October 25, 1989, the Plaintiff installed “G projects” (hereinafter “instant projects”) with the subject of C, D, E, F, one-half of the 6,800 cities in Namnam-gun, Namnam-gun, and the subject of the 6,800 cities, which are the bank protection, tide embankment, drainage, drainage, contact channel, road, etc.

(2) On January 20, 2004, the Plaintiff revised the project plan to additionally install a water channel of 5 km length (hereinafter “instant water channel”) on the H Section around 2004, with the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry with respect to the implementation plan of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and on December 2, 1989, the said plan was designed to pass the Intervenor’s mining area through the instant mining area.

C. Around September 2012, the Intervenor filed a claim with the Plaintiff for adjudication that “A participant sustained losses from suspending extraction based on the instant mining right because the Plaintiff installed the instant water at the center of the mining area where most old soil was buried in the market, and the Intervenor and the Plaintiff unilaterally suspended the Plaintiff’s unilateral consultation during the process of consultation on compensation for losses incurred therefrom.” As to this, on October 9, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Intervenor for adjudication on the instant mining right. As to the Intervenor on October 9, 2012, the public announcement of the instant project approval was made on June 15, 2089, before October 22, 201, the date of the registration of the instant mining right, and thus, the instant mining right was not subject to compensation.

3) On December 20, 2012, the intervenor filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff seeking the revocation of the above rejection disposition and won a favorable judgment (U.S. District Court 2010Guhap901, supra).