1. On July 30, 2014, the Defendant’s notification of non-permission based on the report on screening and crushing aggregate filed against the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On January 6, 2010, pursuant to Article 42(1) of the Mining Industry Act and Article 40(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 40(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiff, who runs the aggregate extraction business and the business of producing, transporting, and selling soil and rocks, has obtained approval for a mining plan with the “mining plan for mineral type gold, mining name non-fluence mine,” and on May 3, 2012, he/she obtained permission from the Defendant to collect the earth and rocks on the 4,028 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “project subject to the instant project”).

On May 28, 2014, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on the instant project site, but on July 30, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the refusal of filing a report on aggregate crushing for the following reasons:

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). (1) Additional aggregate extraction provided for in Article 22 (1) of the Aggregate Extraction Act and Article 12-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act means the cases of collecting aggregate required for the relevant project in the course of performing a project implemented in accordance with other Acts and subordinate statutes, and when removing aggregate incidentally extracted from the project, the permission to extract aggregate must be acquired.

(2) If a flood control area subject to the project in this case intends to extract aggregate, the designation and public announcement of a planned area for the extraction of aggregate shall be prior to

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 12, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 7, the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings is that the plaintiff's removal of aggregate extracted from the land of this case constitutes an alteration of the mining plan for the land of this case's business, so the plaintiff's removal of aggregate from the land of this case constitutes an alteration of the mining plan for the land of this case's business. Thus, in the case of "the removal from aggregate" requiring the approval