1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is the owner of the area of 912 square meters and the area of 3,778 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”). The Defendant is the owner of the instant agricultural infrastructure under the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, among the agricultural infrastructure adjacent to the Plaintiff-owned land, the area of 3,421 square meters, 532 square meters, G ditch 2,671 square meters, G ditch 2,671 square meters, H river 142 square meters, 145 square meters, and 595 square meters of forests and fields (hereinafter “instant agricultural infrastructure”).

On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval for use of agricultural infrastructure (hereinafter “instant application”) with the purport of approving the use of 451 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”) among the agricultural infrastructure in this case as a result of the entry into a house of a farm household to be constructed on the land owned by the Plaintiff.

On May 24, 2017, the Defendant rendered a reply to the Plaintiff refusing to grant approval for use of agricultural infrastructure for non-purpose purposes (hereinafter “instant disposition”) stating that “The instant application site and J facilities are sites for protecting and managing reservoirs in succession to the reservoir, and are facilities installed for the maintenance and management of river water, flood control channels, etc. Therefore, the use for the purpose of using adjacent land and farmers’ access roads is difficult due to difficulties in the maintenance, management, safety control, etc. of agricultural infrastructure for non-purpose purposes” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12, the purport of the whole argument of the defendant's defense prior to the merits of the case is limited to the purport of urging the administrative agency to make an ex officio action, and the plaintiff does not have the right to make an application under the law or sound reasoning demanding the action of the ordinary people such as the plaintiff.

Therefore, since the instant disposition does not fall under the subject of appeal litigation, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is unlawful.

Judgment

Article 23 of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act and Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be "agricultural infrastructure."