1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 10, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to extract aggregate with the following content as a legal entity engaging in the selection, extraction, sale, etc. of aggregate.

(hereinafter “the instant application”) and the relevant place to extract aggregate C

B. On July 5, 2019, the Defendant rejected an application for permission to extract aggregate for the following reasons.

(hereinafter “instant non-permission disposition”). C.

The current status of permission to extract aggregate in the vicinity of the application site of this case is as shown in attached Table 1.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the non-permission disposition in this case is legitimate

A. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff's assertion of this case without any justifiable reason. This is unlawful as it considerably deviates from and abused the exercise of discretionary power, as asserted below.

(b) Attached Form 2 of the relevant statutes;

C. The judicial review of the discretionary act is, in principle, subject to whether there is deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, taking into account the room for the discretion of the administrative agency on the determination of the public interest. The criteria for determination are erroneous facts and whether there is a violation of the principle of proportionality and equality.

With respect to such deviations and abuse of discretionary power, a person who contests the validity of administrative action bears the burden of assertion and certification.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Du48956, Oct. 12, 2017). In full view of the language and purport of relevant provisions, such as Article 22 of the Aggregate Extraction Act, the purport of legislation, and the nature of granting permission to a specific person for the realization of public interest, the act of permitting the extraction of aggregate by the competent market constitutes an act of discretionary discretion. In full view of the following circumstances confirmed in the record, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have abused or abused the exercise of discretionary authority.

① The City accounts for 78% of the total area of 180.20 KN and 18% of forest land.