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 April 21, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained permission to extract aggregate from the Defendant on the following grounds: “243-2, 243-3, 243-4, 243-1, 243-1, and 244-1, a total of 9,932 square meters; from April 21, 2014 to April 30, 2015; “from April 30, 2015; and from June 3, 2014, a high-quality area to be collected should be 243-2, 243-3, 243-4, 243-1, 244-1, 244-1, 244-24, 264-4, 265-264, 266-4, 266-1, 200 square meters of farmland; and there should be no changes in the contents of the permission to extract aggregate.”

‘The content of ‘ was included'.

B. Meanwhile, the restoration plan submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the application for permission and approval for modification to the above aggregate extraction, including the entire area of the instant aggregate extraction permission, was intended to restore the area of 20,947 square meters to its original state, and the ground height to be restored in accordance with the restoration plan was indicated as the original half of the land. On July 15, 2015, the Defendant confirmed that the entire area of the instant aggregate extraction permission was filled at a level of 1 to 3 meters higher than the original half of the land in accordance with the restoration plan, and issued a restoration order (the firstj) to restore the instant aggregate extraction permission area to its original state until August 31, 2015.

C. Nevertheless, on September 4, 2015, the Plaintiff’s failure to perform this, defects in filing an application for completion inspection on the part of the Defendant, and the Defendant’s demand to the Plaintiff for supplement on September 7, 2015 and October 1, 2015, to restore the aggregate to the original state following the violation of the plan for the restoration of the aggregate extraction permitted area (j) and the order for restoration from October 15, 2015.