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 March 21, 2013, the Plaintiff, a corporation established for the purpose of collecting earth and rocks, etc., obtained permission to collect earth and rocks from the Defendant on the size of 16,000 square meters among 28,090 square meters of forest land B in Namnam-gun, Namnam-gun, and engaged in the collection

B. Since then, the Defendant confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff removed stone from the foregoing mountainous district and its neighboring land, and notified the Plaintiff of the application for permission to collect earth and stones or restoration of the damaged mountainous district, but the Defendant revoked the above permission to collect earth and stones on September 23, 2014 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to comply therewith.

C. On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to collect earth and rocks on 22,613 square meters among 31,041 square meters of D Forest land, 21,842 square meters of E forest land, 11,571 square meters of F forest land, and 25,312 square meters among B forest land 28,098 square meters (hereinafter “instant application”). On February 2, 2017, the Plaintiff revoked the said application on February 2, 2017.

On February 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to collect earth and stones with the same purport (hereinafter “instant application”). However, on December 28, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to return the said application on the ground that, following deliberation by the Regional Mountainous District Management Committee of Jeonnam-do, the restoration of existing permitted land was not completed and re-applications after completion of restoration work (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 5, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the ground that the disposition of this case is unlawful because it deviates from and abused discretionary power for the following reasons.

1. Article 39(3)1 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act provides that where a person who intends to obtain a new permit, etc. or file a report, etc. prior to completion inspection on the mountainous district to be restored has deposited restoration expenses, all or part of the restoration obligation may be exempted.

Existing permitted places are included in the application place of this case.