1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a report on excavation, alteration report, and termination of excavation with the object of the groundwater impact investigation with respect to the land excavation report for the purpose of the groundwater impact investigation as follows among the land B (hereinafter “instant land”) in Daegu Suwon-gu, Daegu-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) through Crho Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Crho Construction”) and Hrho Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul-gu”), and the Defendant accepted each of the above reports.

The Defendant who filed a report on excavation at 600 meters in the depth of excavation on December 29, 2010 and 200 meters in the diameter of excavation on January 3, 2011: The Defendant on February 22, 2011 (1,000 meters in the depth of excavation) reporting the alteration of excavation on February 25, 201: On February 25, 2011, the Defendant on the report on the completion of excavation on March 4, 2011: The Defendant on the completion of excavation on March 9, 201: On July 23, 2012 (1,000 meters in the depth of excavation) receiving the report on the alteration of excavation on July 23, 201 (1,000 meters in the depth of excavation): Defendant on the acceptance of the report on the completion of excavation on February 23, 2013.

B. On August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to develop and utilize groundwater within 250 cubic meters per day by excavating 1,030 meters of the instant development hole by attaching a groundwater impact investigation report to the Defendant and installing water pumping facilities at a point of 450 meters and developing and using it (hereinafter “the first application”).

On August 28, 2012, the Defendant rejected the first application from the Plaintiff on the ground that “the depth of excavation of groundwater has been changed from 1,000 to 1,030 meters, but the confirmation was made. As such, the report on the alteration of excavation (1,030m) should be prior to the depth of excavation, and the report on the alteration of excavation should be attached to the report on the alteration of excavation (1,030m) and the depth of excavation should be 1,00m.”

C. On October 24, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for permission for the development and utilization of groundwater again (hereinafter “second application”) by changing the depth of excavation to 1,000 meters to the Defendant. The Defendant excavated the Plaintiff on October 26, 2012.