The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

The reasons why the court should explain this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the allegations added by the defendant to this case by the court of second instance, and therefore, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The summary of the Defendant’s assertion that the permission may be revoked if the Defendant did not comply with the installation of facilities to prevent various pollution, soil and sand damage, and prevention of civil petitions at the time of the instant permission. However, the Plaintiff did not comply with the said conditions.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, based on the right of revocation reserved at the time of the instant permission.

Judgment

The Defendant added the grounds for disposition as alleged above to this court. In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, the disposition agency may add or alter other grounds to the extent that the basic factual relations are deemed identical to those of the original disposition, and the existence of such basic factual relations is determined based on whether the grounds for disposition are identical in light of the basic social factual relations, which are the basis of the disposition, based on the specific facts, before the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19021, Nov. 24, 2011). However, the grounds for disposition in this case are located too close to the surrounding road and village, and are contrary to the public interest due to harm to natural landscape or risk of landslides, and the grounds for disposition added by the Defendant by this court are difficult to be deemed identical to the fact that the Plaintiff violated the conditions of permission in this case.

Even if not, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is considered to have violated the terms and conditions of the instant permission.