1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall include all parts resulting from the participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s lease of State-owned property for the development of mines and permission for mountainous district conversion, etc. (1) The Plaintiff is deemed to be a state-owned land B, 16,836 square meters of forest land B (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) On September 30, 2010, the Plaintiff obtained authorization of the mining plan from the Cheongnam-do Governor to mine in Nowon-do. On September 30, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant regarding the lease period of 3,511 square meters of the instant land, which is the area planned for the development of the mine, with the term “from December 14, 2010 to April 30, 2013.” On February 8, 2011, the Plaintiff was permitted to convert the use of the mountainous district to “from December 14, 2010 to April 30, 2013,” and the period of lease of 3,511 square meters of the instant land between the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) who is the manager of the instant land.

(hereinafter “The first loan agreement”). Article 8(1)5 of the first loan agreement provides that “Where the Plaintiff violates the relevant statutes related to State property and the loan agreement provisions, it may cancel the loan agreement.”

3) On April 20, 201, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the modification of mining plan from the Do governor of Chungcheongnam-do to the mine be mined from the strip mining. On August 24, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into an additional agreement with the Intervenor on the loan agreement with the State property as follows (hereinafter “the second loan agreement”).

() On October 19, 201, the Defendant used the instant land as “from October 19, 201 to April 30, 2013, the period of use is 9,917 square meters (i.e., 6,406 square meters additionally permitted for the first permission)” and used the instant land as “from October 19, 201 to April 30, 2013.”

Article 8(1)5 of the above second loan agreement provides that "a plaintiff may cancel a loan agreement if he/she violates the relevant statutes related to State property and the loan agreement provisions."

The Agreement dated August 24, 201 - The purpose of use: