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

A. On October 21, 2017, the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land, which completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 22, 2017, by purchasing 1,057 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The instant land constitutes a natural green belt (Article 36(1)1 (d) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 30 Subparag. 4 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act) among the “urban areas” as prescribed by the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and the Enforcement Decree of the said Act, and its land category constitutes “farmland” under the Farmland Act (Article 2 subparag. 1 (a) of the Farmland Act).

C. On November 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a construction permit that newly constructs a multi-family house with 1,003 square meters of land size, 199.68 square meters of building area, 529.62 square meters of total floor area, 18 square meters of household number, to the Defendant.

On November 28, 2017, the Defendant issued a provisional disposition of permission for construction (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The applicant’s farmland (the instant land) needs to continue to be preserved for the use and preservation of the farmland as the excellent farmland that has been rearranged with agricultural production infrastructure facilities, such as arable and irrigation facilities, and that the use and preservation of the farmland may be anticipated due to the diversion of farmland, and it is unlikely to comply with the examination regulations under Article 37(2)1 of the Farmland Act and Article 33(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act as it is subject to the consent to the diversion of farmland pursuant to Article 34(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act and Article 34(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7 (the omission of a provisional number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is that the instant land is not a good farmland grouped without maintaining agricultural production facilities, such as land rearrangement and repair facilities, and it is not a good farmland at the edge of the edge of the plate.