2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. Plaintiff A is the co-owners of the instant forest land, each of which owns 3/4 shares of C Forest 6,943 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”), and Plaintiff B is the co-owners of the instant forest land, each of which owns 1/4 shares of the instant forest land.

B. On March 5, 2018, the Plaintiffs reported illegal mountainous district conversion (hereinafter “instant report”) to the Defendant in order to change the land category of 4,081 square meters among the instant forest land (hereinafter “instant application land”) to “pre-use,” which is the actual usage.

C. On April 4, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs that “The instant forest may be subject to the disposition of land category change only for the land which had been used as farmland since before the designation of the development restriction zone in accordance with the guidelines of the relevant department as a development restriction zone. However, as a result of the review, the instant land applied for registration was damaged after the designation of the development restriction zone and is not subject to land category change as farmland (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The key point of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is that the guidelines for processing illegal mountainous districts within development restriction zones by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (hereinafter “instant guidelines”) were established and notified without delegation regarding the permissible standards for land category change under the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Enforcement Rule, and is merely an internal work guidelines of administrative agencies, not an external binding order.

Ultimately, in cases of reporting illegal mountainous district for land designated as a development-restricted zone, there is no statutory ground for accepting the report of illegal mountainous district for land that has already been altered before being designated as a development-restricted zone, but the defendant refused to accept the report of this case in accordance with the guidelines of this case.