Whether the act of urging or recommending the performance of obligations under the preceding restoration order, etc. is an independent administrative disposition subject to appeal lawsuit (negative)

The public notice of the "reparing to the original state", which was notified to the Plaintiff on July 10, 1979, after the period for performance of the obligation to restore to the original state as of December 19, 1978, was postponed as of June 19, 1979, on the ground that the use of the other farmland to the site for the facilities for the development of the land, rain and fish industry without obtaining permission for the diversion to the original state was made by the head of the Si/Gun, and the extension of the period for performance of the obligation to restore to the original state as of June 19, 1979, was deferred as of July 31, 1979, is the purport of urging or recommending the Plaintiff to perform the obligation to restore to the original state, which is borne by the preceding order and guidance

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 15 of the Conservation and Utilization of Farmland Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Seocheon-gun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu466 delivered on March 11, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 2, 3, and 4(1) of the Conservation and Utilization of Farmland Act, even if the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries revokes the designation and public announcement of absolute farmland, the farmland in question is converted to so-called opposite farmland, and a person who intends to divert the farmland except where the farmland in question is used as a site for a house of farming and fishing village and its affiliated facilities, shall obtain permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. According to the provisions of each paragraph of Article 15 of the same Act, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, Do governor, or the head of Gun may order the person who illegally diverts the farmland in violation of the above order to restore the farmland to its original state for a specified period. If the plaintiff fails to restore the farmland to its original state in violation of this order, it shall be justified to enforce the above procedure under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, and the defendant's order to restore the farmland to its original state to its original state without obtaining the above permission, and the defendant's order to restore the original state to its original state to its original state to 17.7.197.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-woo (Presiding Justice)