2. Article 2 of the Farmland Act provides that "farmland" is "farmland, paddy field, orchard, and other land actually used as farmland cultivated or perennial plants cultivated regardless of the legal land category," and "farmland diversion" means "farmland is used for purposes other than for agricultural production or improvement of farmland, such as the cultivation of crops or the growing of perennial plants," and therefore, whether land is farmland under the Farmland Act shall be determined according to the actual status of the land concerned, regardless of the land category in the public record, regardless of its category.

Therefore, if the land whose land category is previously owned by the public register is lost its phenomenon as farmland and its lost condition cannot be deemed temporary, it does not constitute “farmland” any more, and as a result, it does not constitute a subject of permission to divert farmland under the Farmland Act.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do6703 Decided April 16, 2009). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, C, the mother of the defendant, purchased 2,325 square meters in each land of this case from around 1988 to around 1989, B,325 square meters in each land of this case, D, 621 square meters in E, and 119 square meters in each land of this case. The report on October 8, 1992 was made on October 8, 1992, and the said stable constructed a fish shed on each of the above land and used each of the above land as a stable for the stable use, the said stable was built with a pipe, a steel stedu, cement roof, cement bed, and cement bed from each of the above land after construction of the stable, but there was no agricultural shed, but after the construction of the stable, the defendant raised the livestock shed in both cases after the construction of the above cattle.