1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 5, 2009, the Plaintiff applied for the establishment of mining rights (hereinafter “mining rights of this case”) with the following contents in the mining registration office of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy, and obtained permission, and completed the registration of the mining rights of this case on December 16, 2009.

- Location: Gangwoncheon-guncheon-si D, Chuncheon-mining land register: F sub-unit Nos. 2 - Modification of light name: 67 - Duration: 20 years (from December 17, 2009 to December 16, 2029).

B. However, the instant mining right was revoked on the ground of “ex officio extinguishment due to nonperformance of development obligation” and registered ex officio April 25, 2012.

C. Meanwhile, on October 25, 2013, the Defendants completed the registration of the exploration right on the indication of the extracting rights (hereinafter “the exploration right of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including the relevant number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, the cause of the instant claim, as the cause of the instant claim, was notified by the Korea Mining Promotion Corporation in 2012 that the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the instant mining right within one year, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 500 million to the Plaintiff the transfer price of the instant mining right and KRW 500 million per month, and Defendant B transferred the instant mining right to the Plaintiff. However, Defendant B failed to comply with the agreement, the period of the instant application for the extension of the mining right was exceeded, and the period of the instant application was exceeded, and as such, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the instant exploration right as to subparagraph 1 of the most important small portion of the mining land register in the name of the Defendants, and the Plaintiff was unable to register the mining right as to subparagraphs 1 through 4 of the said small portion in the wind. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that, on the ground of Defendant B’s deception, the Plaintiff cancelled the above agreement and sought the cancellation of the exploration right as a kind of or exclusion from interference.

3. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence Nos. 5 and 6. The defendant B of this case to the plaintiff.