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 Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal cited in the judgment of the first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court are justified even if the parties’ claims are examined by adding the evidence submitted to the court in the first instance to the evidence submitted in

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) partially dismissed or supplemented the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stipulated in paragraph (2) below; and (b) in addition to adding the judgment of the court of first instance as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, it is cited by Article

2. The second order of the height is immediately next to the second order of the upper order, and the plaintiff is "M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "M") in which the plaintiff is the representative director."

The second top group's table is 3 e.g., each "Plaintiff" under the same side and 3 e.g. to "M".

The part of the 3rd 1 and 2 “the plaintiff made” is as follows.

On May 1, 2017, “M filed an application with the Defendant for authorization of an extraction plan of 4,790 square meters of Asan City L, and immediately thereafter, on May 16, 2017, the Plaintiff succeeded to the application for authorization of the above extraction plan as a mining right holder of the instant mine upon the expiration of the term of mining concession right of M on May 16, 2017, respectively, from the third bottom of “A” [based on recognition] to seven (7) statements.

The whole text of the 3rd through 11th chapter [number 2] of the 5th chapter shall be changed as follows. “The authorization of the mining plan or the modification thereof as defined in the Mining Industry Act shall belong to the discretionary action of an administrative agency, and may refuse the authorization of the mining plan or the modification thereof if it is deemed necessary for the significant public interest in terms of environmental conservation, such as the rationality, feasibility and stability of the contents of the mining plan, pollution of water and soil accompanied by the mining plan, and the exhaustion of groundwater.