1. On October 24, 2016, the order to suspend aggregate extraction issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 22, 2016, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant that he/she would install a aggregate screening machine on the luminous 880-1 and three lots of Masung-gun Labor, Jeonsung-gun, and screen and crush aggregate.

B. On August 29, 2016, the Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s application on August 29, 2016, added a performance condition that the screening, washing, and crushing is not possible, and that the acceptance of the report is revoked in the event of violation

C. On October 24, 2016, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to suspend collecting aggregate pursuant to Article 30 of the Aggregate Extraction Act on the ground that the Plaintiff installed a crushing machine and crushed small gravel in violation of the performance condition, and notified the Plaintiff around that time.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's defense prior to the main design only accepted the plaintiff's report on the selection and washing of aggregate and did not permit the plaintiff to extract aggregate.

Since the instant disposition is a disposition ordering the Plaintiff to suspend the extraction of aggregate, the instant disposition does not affect the selection and washing business of aggregate, and therefore, the Plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the instant disposition.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant regulations.

C. Article 30 subparag. 3 of the Aggregate Extraction Act provides that the head of a Si/Gun/Gu may order a person who has obtained permission to extract aggregate to alter the aggregate extraction area, suspend extraction, relocate facilities, or take other necessary measures, if he/she fails to comply with any of the conditions attached to the permission to extract aggregate. Article 50 subparag. 4 of the Aggregate Extraction Act provides that a person who violates an order issued under Article 30 shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than one

Therefore, even if the plaintiff is not a person permitted to extract aggregate and there is no legal interest directly infringed even after the defendant was ordered to suspend the extraction of aggregate.