1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In around 1993, the Plaintiff obtained a permit for the development and use of groundwater (the permitted use: residential facilities, and drinking purposes: drinking purposes) (hereinafter “instant permit”) with the development location as Seopo-si B, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, and obtained a permit for extension thereafter, and finally obtained a permit for extension by April 30, 2017.

On May 2, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would not file an application for extension under the Special Act on the Establishment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and the Development of Free International City (hereinafter “Special Act on Jeju”) and the Groundwater Act, and that the Plaintiff would be subject to restoration upon termination of the permission, and that the Plaintiff would apply for extension by May 30, 2017, which is the additional application period.

B. Accordingly, upon filing an application with the Plaintiff for the extension of the period, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of the permit for the development and use of groundwater (i.e., revocation of the permit for the use of groundwater) by giving notice to the Plaintiff on the ground that the groundwater facilities permitted for the use of the instant groundwater fall under “cases where the development and use pursuant to the permitted purpose becomes impossible” under Article 10(1)7 of the Groundwater Act, and issued a decision to revoke the permit for the use of groundwater and to restore the groundwater to the original state on June 21, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7 and Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is developing and using the groundwater for which the instant permit was obtained for the purpose of obtaining the permit, but it is only less than the volume. The above reasons do not constitute “where it has become impossible to develop and utilize the groundwater in accordance with the purpose of obtaining the permit.” Thus, there is no ground for the instant disposition. 2) The Plaintiff is permitted to use the instant groundwater, which is a beneficial administrative disposition, solely on the grounds that the Defendant is using a small amount of groundwater claimed.