The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 13, 2004, the Plaintiff collected earth and stones by obtaining permission to collect earth and stones for five years from June 14, 2004 to June 13, 2009, and for five years from 329,060 square meters of collected soil and stones for the period of collection and release of 44,150 square meters (hereinafter “the instant stone collection site”). 2) The Plaintiff filed an application for extension of the period of permission to collect earth and stones with the Defendant on June 1, 2009, when the permission expires, but the Defendant rejected it on June 12, 2009.

3) The Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation against the foregoing non-permission disposition following an administrative appeal, but was sentenced to a judgment against the Plaintiff on August 17, 2010 (former District Court Decision 2009Guhap3191), and the judgment against the Plaintiff was finalized by the Supreme Court’s dismissal on July 14, 2011 (Supreme Court Decision 201Du8468). (B) On September 22, 2011, the Plaintiff was approved by the Defendant for the restoration period from September 23, 2011 to April 30, 201, and commenced restoration from mountainous district.

2) As a result of the Defendant’s interim inspection on December 7, 201, the following facts were confirmed. (A) The Plaintiff: (a) in violation of the attached Table 6 of Article 43(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Mountainous Districts Management Act and the aforementioned restoration design; (b) the Defendant ordered the removal of a shower, which is a aggregate production facility, due to the expiration of the period for permission to collect earth and stones; (c) however, the Plaintiff did not remove showers at the place where the recovery was intended, and (d) the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the Defendant carried out the works for recovery of stairs in the course of restoring the instant stone collection, and that the shower was transferred to an area other than the area subject to recovery by December 30, 2011.

4. On-site inspections conducted on March 26, 2012, the Defendant confirmed that the shower still has not been removed, and made the Plaintiff move the shower to the Plaintiff by April 10, 2012, and did not comply with it.