1. The Defendant’s disposal of hot spring excavation reported to the Plaintiff on August 22, 2018 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 17, 2018, the Plaintiff reported the excavation of hot spring in the land B (hereinafter “instant reported land”) owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on August 17, 2018.

B. However, on August 22, 2018, the Defendant: (a) there was an existing hot spring hole where the revocation of acceptance of a report of hot spring discovery and reinstatement have not yet been made within a horizontal distance of 1,00 meters from the place of the instant report (hereinafter “existing hot spring hole in this case”); and (b) the Plaintiff’s report of hot spring excavation was not accepted on the ground that, where the disposition of revocation is reversed due to the progress of the administrative litigation following the revocation of the acceptance of the report of hot spring discovery in the above existing hot spring hole,

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

In response to this, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on July 23, 2018, the Plaintiff was adjudicated to dismiss the request.

[Reasons for Recognition: Descriptions in Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2]

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. On March 29, 2018, the Plaintiff revoked the acceptance of the report of hot spring discovery on the existing hot spring hole of the instant case. As such, there is no legitimate existing hot spring hole within 1,00 meters in horizontal distance from the place of the instant report.

In addition, there is no possibility that the revocation of the acceptance is revoked due to administrative appeal or administrative litigation.

Therefore, the disposition of this case which did not accept the report of hot spring excavation by making the existence of existing hot spring hole as a disposal ground is unlawful.

B. Where there is a "existing hot spring hole" within a horizontal distance of 1,000 meters from the place where the defendant's hot spring excavation permission is sought, it is impossible to obtain a hot spring excavation permission. The existing hot spring hole here includes a hot spring hole which has not yet been restored even if the acceptance of the report of hot spring discovery has been revoked, and the existing hot spring hole of this case has yet to be revoked.