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 January 15, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired D Co., Ltd. (former name “E”; hereinafter “instant bath”) located in Busan-gu, Busan-do, and completed a report on the change in the development and utilization of groundwater for the purpose of using it in the instant bath pursuant to Article 8 of the Groundwater Act to the Defendant on March 3, 2014, for the purpose of using it in the instant bath pursuant to Article 8 of the Groundwater Act, the Plaintiff completed the report on change in the development and utilization of groundwater (hereinafter “instant facilities”).

[ table1] The 129∑ 5' 0"east 35∑ 35∑ 8' 0"east 129∑ 35∑ 4' 4"east 129∑ 35∑ 4' 4"east 120 meters in diameter 150 meters in diameter 150 meters in diameter 150 meters in diameter 80 meters in diameter 130 meters in diameter 130 meters in diameter 130 meters in diameter 130 meters in diameter 40 meters in diameter of the discharge pipe inside the water pumping system for use.

B. On January 28, 2015, according to the implementation plan for the water quality inspection of the instant bath (hereinafter “the primary water quality inspection”), the Defendant: (a) found that Trichloroethyl items were “Trichlorhyle”; (b) notified the Plaintiff of re-inspection after suspending the use of groundwater and taking measures to improve the quality of groundwater pursuant to Article 20 of the Groundwater Act; and (c) subsequently, on March 24, 2015 and April 2, 2015, re-inspection of noncompliant items (hereinafter “second and third water quality inspection”) was still found to be “influence”; and (d) on April 20, 2015, the Defendant made a disposition to the Plaintiff to restore the instant facilities and land to its original state (hereinafter “first disposition”).

C. When the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to undergo a re-inspection after installing a groundwater purification facility, the Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s request and conducted an additional inspection of groundwater quality (hereinafter “fourth water quality inspection”) on May 8, 2015, and as a result, it was found as “conformity”, the Defendant withdrawn the first disposition on May 14, 2015, and on the other hand, “the Plaintiff’s assurance of the following contents” from the Plaintiff.