1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On November 30, 2009, the Plaintiff registered the transfer of a mining right with the size of 96ha of the size, B of the mining right of November 30, 2009, C, Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, D, D, Mining E, Mining E, Mining E, and Mining E, and Mining E, and 96ha of the size.

B. On January 25, 201, the Plaintiff applied for authorization of mining plan pursuant to Article 42 of the Mining Industry Act with respect to the F, G, H, I, H, J, K, L, M, M, N Total 21,207 square meters (hereinafter “F and eight parcels”) from the Gyeongnam-do Governor on January 25, 201, for the extraction of minerals, such as gold, etc. F, and eight parcels. (2) In consultation with the Defendant, the Gyeongnam-do Governor may cause serious damage to the surrounding environment and crops; and (3) on February 21, 2011, the Plaintiff issued a disposition on February 21, 201, to the effect that the application does not constitute a ground for permission of development and temporary permission of farmland for other purposes, such as farmland being improved as farmland worthy of conservation, and that the application does not constitute a ground for permission of development and a temporary permission of farmland for other purposes.

3) On April 18, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the above disposition with the Minister of Knowledge Economy, and received a decision for applicant on April 18, 2012, the Gyeongnam-do, upon consultation with the Defendant, issued a disposition to authorize an extraction plan by adding additional clauses prohibiting the Plaintiff from shipping earth and sand out to the outside.

5) On August 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission to the effect that the attachment of additional clauses to the authorization of the extracting plan is null and void. However, on November 18, 2013, the Plaintiff responded to the civil petition with respect to the grievance with the content that the additional clauses prohibiting the release of by-products was justifiable.

C. On June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in the gathering of earth and rocks on the aggregate of 1,323 square meters in Gyeongnam-gun and 1,323 square meters in P field and 2,308 square meters in 3,631 square meters in order to mine minerals.

The defendant's application on August 21, 2017 is a good farmland, the settlement of which is completed, which is likely to damage or lock the good farmland, and the excavation for the collection of gold is at least five meters.