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.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows, except for adding the following judgments with regard to the matters alleged by the plaintiff, which were returned or emphasized in the trial at the court of first instance, the court of first instance applied Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act to this case.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The judgment of the first instance court is unlawful in that the Plaintiff’s assertion is below.

1) Despite the fact that the Plaintiff illegally damaged a forest outside the boundary area of the instant permitted site by the prosecution investigation result, the first instance court made a decision that is inconsistent with the pertinent criminal case. 2) Notwithstanding the absence of any evidence as to the fact that the illegally damaged area outside the permitted site reaches 13,115 square meters, the lower court erred by recognizing the Plaintiff’s public official’s false testimony based only on the Defendant’s false testimony.

In relation to this, the Plaintiff filed a complaint for perjury.

3) Despite having been sentenced to a fine due to an illegal damage to forests of 22,00 square meters adjacent to the permitted area and 22,000 square meters, the Defendant, unlike the Plaintiff, was subject to a disposition of non-guilty, extended the period of quarrying permission to the Mazsan. However, compared to the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, in view of the fact that it is contrary to equity, and the investigation details of the relevant criminal case, etc., the instant disposition was in violation of the law and the first instance court abused and abused discretion. (b) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion was not subject to the disposition of non-suspect by the prosecution, and as seen above, the court of the first instance determined free evaluation by evidence.