1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim against the defendant Chungcheongnam-do Governor shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 198, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the head of Taean-Gun, who was delegated with his authority by the Governor of Chungcheongnam-do, on the land of this case, on the land of this case, with the purpose of using the land for the purpose of using the land B B prior to Taean-gun, Taean-gun, general property under the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Management Act”) and the loan period for the land of this case, “from October 25, 1998 to October 24, 2003.” The Plaintiff used the land of this case for the residential purpose of 660 square meters, and the remaining 2,646 square meters for the purpose of farming. (b) around 202, the Plaintiff used the loan agreement for the land of this case for the purpose of farming with the head of Chungcheongnam-Gun, Chungcheongnam-do, which was delegated by the Governor of Chungcheongnam-do. The Plaintiff extended the lease agreement between the head of Chungcheongnam-do, who had been delegated by the Governor of Chungcheongnam-do.”

C. On December 2, 2016, Defendant Chungcheongnam-do Governor notified the Plaintiff that he would not renew the loan agreement after December 31, 2016, on the ground that he/she violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement by planting trees and growing perennial crops on the 2,646 square meters used for farming purposes among the instant land.

On February 1, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the purport that, through a national examination four times on February 1, 2017 (1), February 10, 2017 (2), February 22, 2017 (3), and March 9, 2017 (4), notification of Defendant Chungcheongnam-do Governor’s refusal to renew the loan agreement on part of the instant land is unreasonable, and thus, it would be resolved.

In relation to this, Defendant Chungcheongnam-nam Do Governor responded to the purport that it is possible to renew a loan agreement if an application for a loan agreement is filed with respect to each civil petition filed on February 10 (1), February 20, 2017 (2), February 20, 2017 (3j), February 28, 2017 (3j), and March 14, 2017 (4).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant reply”). E.

On June 16, 2017, the Plaintiff is the Defendant.