1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) obtained a construction waste interim disposal business license under the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act (hereinafter “Construction Waste Act”) on August 8, 2000, and operated an interim construction waste disposal business from Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 3,659 square meters among 3,767 square meters in Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On March 3, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired the entire construction waste disposal facilities and sales rights from Company B established for the purpose of interim construction waste disposal business, etc., and reported the succession of rights and obligations arising from the construction waste interim disposal business license to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant report on succession”).

C. On April 10, 2015, the Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s report on the instant succession in accordance with Article 31(2) of the Construction Waste Act on the condition that “to remove wastes in excess of the permissible storage quantity within the deadline for issuing an order (the suspension of bringing in until the completion of the removal)” etc.

As the period of temporary use of farmland for other purposes under the Farmland Act expires as of May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of temporary use of farmland for other purposes to the Defendant. On May 27, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to the Plaintiff to extend the period of temporary use of farmland for other purposes from June 1, 2016 to May 31, 2017.

E. On May 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for extension of the period of temporary use of farmland for other purposes with respect to the instant land to the Defendant again on May 26, 2017. On May 29, 2017, the Defendant rejected the extension of the period of temporary use of farmland for other purposes on the instant land on the ground that “the maximum period of temporary use stipulated under Article 38 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act with respect to the instant land has expired as of May 31, 2017 and it is no longer possible to extend the period of temporary use for other purposes.”

F. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with this.