1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or addition of the judgment as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The second 11th of the judgment of the first instance shall be formed by cutting "J" into "N".

② Following the second 13th written judgment of the first instance court, “The Plaintiff (the Plaintiff was excluded from the place where the earth and rocks were collected on or around July 2017)”, “A change in the collection of earth and rocks, which was approved by the Defendant on September 6, 2017, shall be added.”

③ Following the second 16th decision of the first instance court, “the instant disposition” (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was added.

(4) Ten copies of the third 10th 10th son of the judgment of the court of the first instance shall be written with "Evidences 1 through 3, 14 of the first 10th son."

(5) Pursuant to paragraph (8) of the 8th sentence of the first instance court, “i” shall be deleted.

(6) "Enforcement Rules of the Mountainous Districts Management Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs No. 340, Nov. 12, 2018)" in the 9th sixth sentence of the first instance judgment shall be added.

2. Additional determination

A. In addition to the circumstances described in the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the existence of the grounds for disposition, considering the following circumstances, it is deemed necessary for the public interest to refuse the instant application, in full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively considering the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the overall purport of pleadings:

1. Mountainous districts with the maximum of 149 meters, where the 11 and 2 permissions were planted, and mountainous districts have been damaged as the plaintiff collected earth and rocks after obtaining permission on August 30, 2007, and the damaged area has gradually increased.

In addition, the plaintiff operates heavy equipment and large trucks for collecting and shipping soil and rocks at the first and second permission sites.

As such, mountainous districts have been widely damaged for a long time, and small villages.