Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of B-2,023 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Silung-si, and the instant land is a “farmland” under the Farmland Act and has a waterway naturally generated in that place.

B. On April 30, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission on the act of installing fume (a diameter of about 800m) on a part of the waterway ( approximately 18.5m in length) located on the instant land, as follows, to build a new agricultural product storage on the said part (hereinafter “instant development act”).

C. On May 14, 2019, the Defendant included the first ground for the Defendant’s disposition (Evidence A2) that “the Plaintiff does not constitute a qualification that the Plaintiff may construct under Article 2 of the Guidelines for Permission for Acts of Restricted Areas at Time of Reconstruction,” on the ground that the Defendant’s disposition that “the damage to farmland improvement facilities and the smooth flow of the use and drainage of the farmland improvement facilities related to Article 37(2)3 of the Farmland Act and Article 33(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is not judged to be impeded.” However, during the instant lawsuit, the Defendant withdrawn the reason for the disposition.

The Plaintiff’s above application was rejected (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 cannot be deemed as “the diversion of farmland” under Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Farmland Act, and thus, permission for or consultation on the diversion of farmland under Article 34 of the Farmland Act is not necessary. As such, the Defendant is prohibited from restricting under Article 37(2) subparag. 3 of the Farmland Act or conducting an examination under Article 33(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act. Even if the instant development act constitutes “the diversion of farmland”, it constitutes a case where farmland under Article 35(1) subparag. 1 of the Farmland Act is converted into a site for “facilities for agriculture and livestock.”