1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant is a local government that is responsible for granting permission to collect earth and stones and supervision thereof for a total of 5,884 square meters of five parcels of land A, B, C, D, and E (hereinafter “the instant stone”). The Plaintiff is a company that bears the cost of restoring the instant stone to its original state.

B. The F (G) obtained permission to collect earth and stones on September 25, 200 for the instant stone from the Republic of Korea, but was subject to criminal punishment by illegally collecting not less than ten meters underground, and H (the representative I is the husband of F) obtained permission on March 6, 2001 and obtained extension of the period and change of the size on June 8, 2001. In violation of relevant statutes, F (G) was subject to criminal punishment for not less than 15 meters underground and I was subject to criminal punishment for not less than 6 months.

C. The Defendant, on March 6, 2001, refused the application for permission on the ground of F’s aforementioned tort, neglected to grant permission by neglecting his/her duties, and neglected his/her responsibility despite the responsibility to supervise whether the collection of earth and rocks is legally underway, and whether the collection of earth and rocks is being performed in a state where recovery is possible according to the drawing of the recovery plan.

Even in the permission of June 8, 2001, there are significant defects such as the permission of March 6, 2001, and the permission of the defendant was granted by expanding the area of 257 square meters that can be granted by the defendant under the current laws and regulations, even though the area of permission was limited to 48,900 square meters. Such defendant's act constitutes a violation of law.

E. Even if the permission disposition as of November 9, 2004 and the permission disposition as of January 3, 2005 were succeeded as of March 6, 2001, it was not found that the public official belonging to the defendant did not properly conduct an on-site investigation, and that the current status of the tin acid was severely damaged because it was not in accordance with the original business plan and the restoration plan.

F. As the Defendant neglected to manage and supervise the instant stone production, the instant stone production up to 15 meters underground.