1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 11, 2015, C, the owner of 202 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun B (hereinafter “B”) filed an application with the Defendant for the revocation of approval for use for non-purpose purposes on September 22, 2015, for the purpose of using the said farmland as dry field. The Defendant filed an application for the revocation of approval for use for non-purpose purposes, among the D, D, 5,324 square meters (hereinafter “D land”), which is an agricultural infrastructure, for the purpose of using it as dry field. Accordingly, the Defendant revoked the approval for use for non-purpose purposes on September 23, 2016, stating that “a civil petition for the joint use of the relevant ditch was received, but the approval for use shall be withheld after the revocation of the approval for use for non-purpose purposes to resolve disputes due to the narrow area in the area of the civil petitioner and the on-site verification result,” and revoked the approval for use for non-purpose purposes.

B. Meanwhile, on September 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval of the use of the size of 90 square meters of the area to be used as the access to the said orchard (hereinafter “instant orchard”) for the purpose of using the said orchard as an access to the said orchard. However, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-permission of the application for non-permission on October 19, 2016, on the ground that “the instant land is determined to have a dispute over both sides at the time of approval of the use for the purpose other than the site used by the owner of the adjacent land (B) as the site used by C, and the instant land is deemed to have been used as the site used by the owner C, and as a result, was presented and deliberated by the civil petition coordination committee pursuant to Article 34 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act and Article 38 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.”

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, along with a written opinion stating that “C does not constitute an interested party under the status of being notified of the removal and reinstatement of facilities that revealed the unlawful use of the land of this case, and thus, is not likely to cause a dispute,” the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant again on November 2016.

Although an application for approval of use for purposes other than those mentioned in the same paragraph was filed, the defendant on November 2016.