1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 12, 1984, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant to collect earth and stone continuously since it had been obtained from the Defendant, and after October 11, 2006, the Plaintiff obtained permission to alter earth and stone collection or extension on several occasions with respect to the size 70,285 cubic meters of the area (hereinafter “the first stone collection”) as follows. The Defendant, upon obtaining permission from the Defendant, should clearly state the permission to extend the permitted area and the permitted type of non-permitted area according to the civil engineering design submitted at the time of collecting earth and stone, by specifying the permitted quantity and the permitted quantity and the permitted quantity and the permitted quantity and the permitted quantity and the permitted quantity and the permitted quantity are to be collected at the time of collecting earth and stone. The Defendant maintained the permitted quantity and the permitted quantity and the permitted quantity and the permitted quantity are to be collected at the time of collecting earth and stone.

B. On June 27, 2006, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant to connect the size of 58,693 square meters (hereinafter “the instant stone collection area”) of three lots, other than C in the same Gun, adjacent to the original stone collection area, to the 58,693 square meters (hereinafter “the instant stone collection area”). On August 21, 2007, the Plaintiff obtained permission to collect stone by December 31, 2013 for the period of quarrying permission again until December 31, 2007, and obtained permission to alter the number of stone collection permission 1,256,470 cubic meters.

At the time of the above permission, the Defendant clearly stated the following conditions: “The already processed conditions of permission, etc. shall be complied with.”

C. Since then, on October 30, 2012, the Defendant discovered that the Plaintiff violated the terms and conditions of permission, and on November 5, 2012, the Defendant suspended the collection of stone in accordance with Article 31 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act as follows: (a) as to the two places of stone collection D and E, for which the disposition of the suspension of the collection of stone in this case was rendered (Evidence (Evidence (Evidence (No. 2)) as to the Plaintiff on November 5, 2012, the Defendant shall suspend the collection of stone in accordance with Article 31 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act for the following reasons; (a).