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 operated the mining business with the name of “F” from June 30, 2003, as a person with a mining concession right jointly with “E” with respect to the Government C and D mining area (the area of each 272 L, the instant mining area “the instant mining area”) located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for temporary use of G forest 992 square meters located within the instant mining area (hereinafter “instant forest”). On February 23, 201, the Defendant applied for temporary use of the instant forest to the Defendant, setting the purpose of temporary use as the development of the Yan Mine, and the period of temporary use from February 23, 201 to February 22, 2013, and granted the temporary use permission (hereinafter “instant permission”).

C. After that, on February 1, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for permission to extend the period of temporary use (hereinafter “instant application”) to the Defendant, and the Defendant rejected the instant application with the following content on February 14, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). F (Representative Plaintiff) is required to submit monthly a report on mineral production authorized under Article 83 of the Mining Industry Act and Article 59 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act at the time of extraction through temporary use of minerals, but there is a case where the F (Representative Plaintiff) submitted a false mineral production report and issued an administrative disposition, such as attaching a new mineral production report from August 2007 to January 2008, although it did not produce minerals.

In addition, the plaintiff is causing civil lawsuits related to the removal of minerals and conflicts with the owners of plants and local residents in the vicinity of this mine. Of course, at the time of the Gyeonggi-do joint inspection on the disaster risk in comparison with the past on July 11, 2012, the plaintiff neglected to take measures against the disaster risk in the surface of the spit entrance, which was pointed out at the time of the Gyeonggi-do joint inspection on the disaster risk, and neglected to be exposed to the risk of a stable accident, such

Therefore, F.C.