1. The Defendant’s disposition of restoration order issued to the Plaintiff on March 14, 2019 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration for permission for the act of excavating (one hole, 450 meters in the depth of excavation, and 200 meters in the diameter of excavation) for the confirmation of the existence of hot spring in Incheon-gun Land (hereinafter “instant land”) (hereinafter “instant land”), which is an act of changing the phenomenon of “C”, which is a natural monument B, and on July 27, 2018, the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration conducted on September 2018 on the ground that “the excavation date of August 2018” from the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration is the arrival and propagation of low-water, and obtained conditional permission for the conditions of permission “after establishing measures to prevent hot spring water from being flow into the sea area directly,” which is “after implementing cultural tourism

On October 19, 2018, the Plaintiff started excavation of the instant land.

B. The Defendant, on March 14, 2019, developed and used groundwater in the instant land without obtaining permission for the development and use of groundwater under Article 7(1) of the Groundwater Act, thereby ordering the Plaintiff to restore the groundwater to its original state pursuant to Article 15(3) of the Groundwater Act.

A. [The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings, based on recognition.]

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not go through the prior notification and hearing of opinions under Articles 21 and 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act while rendering the instant disposition, and did not properly present the grounds for the disposition under Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act. In addition, the Plaintiff continued the relevant permission procedures in accordance with the Defendant’s guidance. However, without giving the Plaintiff an opportunity for correction, the Defendant issued the instant disposition and violated Article 4(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act. 2) In violation of the principle of trust protection, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a report on excavation and use of the excavation in the instant land and an application for permission to the Administrator of Cultural Heritage Administration, and the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff.