1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is a company that runs the business of screening and crushing aggregate.

On April 14, 2016, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a report on the selection and crushing of aggregate (hereinafter referred to as “the first report of this case”) with the content that “the type of business for screening and crushing aggregate, and the details of the zone for screening aggregate: B/365 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant place of business”): From April 14, 2016 to March 30, 2018; the quantity collected: 420 square meters: 420 square meters; 108,000 square meters; and the method of collecting aggregate: the period for screening and crushing aggregate: March 30, 2018; and the Defendant accepted it on April 14, 2016.

On December 20, 2018, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on December 20, 2018, that the instant place of business would install a aggregate screening machine from October 2018 to October 30, 2023: The Plaintiff reported to the Defendant that he/she will screen and scrap aggregate of 420 square meters (annual production: 108,000 square meters) (hereinafter “the instant secondary report”).

The Plaintiff’s business operation period (from April 14, 2016 to March 30, 2018) has not yet been completed until now with respect to corrective measures against illegal matters, and at the same time, it is determined that the consent of village residents for resumption of business by means of an notarized document signed with the village certified on December 12, 2016 is necessary.

(Ground Aggregate Picking Act (Articles 32, 22, and 30). On January 3, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the acceptance of the instant report is impossible due to the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter in the absence of separate indications, each number is included), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the whole purport of the argument, and the validity of the disposition of this case as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, the defendant, who has no ground for disposition, stated that the plaintiff did not correct the illegal matters as stated in the attached Table Nos. 1, the grounds for disposition of this case, but the plaintiff completed the improvement measures or the payment of fine.

In addition, the workplace of this case is adjacent.