1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 6, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission for the establishment of the Foundation C (hereinafter “instant Foundation”) with the Defendant (tentative name) (hereinafter “instant Foundation”) on October 6, 2015, for the purpose of developing and operating a natural burial ground (hereinafter “instant natural burial ground”) on a 65,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) among the 102,98 square meters of forest and field in B, and seven parcels of land outside Chungcheongnam-si (hereinafter “instant site”).

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On February 2, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to establish the Foundation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 4 of the Rules on the Establishment and Supervision of Non-Profit Corporations under the Ministry of Health and Welfare for the following reasons.

① It is anticipated that it is difficult to realize the intended project because the Chungcheong market, which is the authority to permit the establishment of funeral service establishments, is in conflict with residents’ opinions on the creation of woodland, because it is difficult to realize the intended project because the intended establishment is unclear. ② It is determined that the utilization level and effectiveness of the same facility are low as the convenience facilities necessarily required in the tree funeral service establishments are located in the original distance which is impossible to be used as Do newsletter. ③ There is no dispute over the establishment of funeral service establishments with respect to the fact that there is no civil petition against the installation of funeral service establishments [based on recognition], the entry in Gap and 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that “the intention to implement the project is uncertain” in the Chungcheong market is that it is an excessive arbitrary interpretation by the Defendant, ② the Defendant evidently misleads the fact about the establishment of convenience facilities, ③ some opposing opinions by neighboring residents regarding the development of the natural burial ground in this case cannot be readily concluded that the implementation of the establishment of the Foundation in this case is impossible, and the specific contents of the Dissenting Opinion are merely opinions that fall short of rationality. In full view of the above, the instant disposition is based on the grounds for lack of rationality on the basis of erroneous facts.