1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding to the corresponding part the determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion that is emphasized by sending back the case at the court of first instance, and thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. According to Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Plaintiff’s assertion, “the rightful priority of a hot spring” refers to a reporter of a report of hot spring discovery to whom a report of hot spring discovery is accepted and who owns the land with the relevant hot spring hole. However, where the owner of the land is changed after a report of hot spring discovery is accepted, the changed owner of the land refers to the changed owner of the land. In this context, the owner of the relevant hot spring hole includes the de facto owner who owns the land under another person’s name. Therefore

B. The legislative intent of Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Hot Spring Act, which is limited not only to a report of hot spring discovery, but also to the owner of the land located in the hot spring hole, is to grant the benefits of the permission for preferential utilization of hot spring only to a stable and reliable hot spring discovery report, and to prevent the conflict of interest and disorderly hot spring development surrounding the development of hot spring. As alleged above by the plaintiff, if the actual owner who owns land in another person's name grants the benefits of the permission for preferential utilization of hot spring to the actual owner who owns land in another person's name as alleged above, it is likely to cause disputes and confusion surrounding the development of hot spring due to the lack of stable exercise of the right to the land, and thus, it is likely to impede the legislative purpose of Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Hot Spring Act