1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is to change or add some of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the appellate court as to the plaintiff's argument in paragraph (2). Thus, it is to

Part 3, 5, and 6 changed the phrase “in spite of having received a periodic report under Article 14(3) of the former Aggregate Extraction Act during the period from January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014, it did not comply with it, and three months have passed since it did not submit a periodic report.”

Since the 3th page 15 was repaired, “the Plaintiff accepted”, and around May 201 and June 2012, submitted all documents related to the registration criteria required for the periodic report while reporting the change of the registered matters of aggregate extraction business, and was replaced by the Defendant’s normal repair.

On April 29, 2015, the defendant sought to submit documents related to the registration criteria for aggregate extraction business to the defendant on April 29, 2015, and submitted them to the defendant, but the defendant rejected it."

Part 4 is replaced by " January 12, 2012" in the 17th and 5th and 16th and " January 13, 2012."

Part 5: The following shall be added to the next activity of Part 18:

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to evidence Nos. 15-1, 5 and evidence Nos. 21-3, the plaintiff's representative around May 201 to C, and the representative from May 24, 201 to D respectively, as the representative changed from May 24, 201 to D, the plaintiff reported the change of the registered matters of aggregate extraction business (the representative's change was reported. Accordingly, on June 6, 2012, the defendant was not required to the plaintiff on June 6, 2012, and the balance sheet, aggregate extraction facility, paper, document of holding status, and list of the qualified state technician.