1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 17 (including each number), and the whole purport of the pleadings, unless there is a dispute between the parties or in full view of the following facts:

A. The Plaintiff, from around May 3, 1995, obtained a permit to collect stone and aggregate from the head of Gun having jurisdiction over the Defendant to the 3rd day of August 30, 1995, and obtained a permit to collect earth and rocks from the head of Gun having jurisdiction over the Defendant to the 208-1 square meters in the 208-1 (hereinafter “the instant stone collection site”), 66,787 square meters in the cut area, 42,37 square meters in the 42,37 square meters in the stone collection area, 1,113,748 square meters in the 1,113,748 square meters in the width, 1,05 to the 305th day of August 25, 1995 (hereinafter “instant first permit”), and from the 205th day of July 10, 2003 to the 205th day of the same permission period from the 205th day of July 10, 20063.

B. On March 24, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to collect earth and stones with the head of the competent Gun for the area of 144,052 square meters for collection of stone in the instant stone collection site, for seven years from the permitted date of permission, and for seven years from the collected amount of earth and stones 1,523,149 cubic meters (hereinafter “instant application”).

C. On June 22, 2009, the Mountainous District Management Committee of Jeollabuk-do, upon the Plaintiff’s instant application, made a conditional decision with the effect that it is reasonable to grant permission to collect earth and stones on the condition that “to establish a complete plan for recovery from walls practicable” and “to implement a recovery plan after consultation with the pet-gun,” etc.

On August 12, 2009, upon the instant application, the head of Aniju Gun did not comply with the instant application even though the Plaintiff did not neglect the method of collection and did so more than 10 times.