1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

. Details of the disposition; and

A. On April 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities for the purpose of creating good farmland with respect to five parcels of land (hereinafter “instant land”) including Incheon City B, C, D, E, and F. The main contents are as follows.

- A - The objective of this application is No. B and 4 parcels outside the city of ,00, and the category of the natural green-belts on the special-purpose area is currently being utilized as farmland as a answer, but in order to contribute to the development of agriculture by increasing agricultural productivity through the regradation of a good quality soil and improvement into the excellent farmland, the application for the project has been filed and the application for the project has been made in the state.

The level of the construction plan at the time of the public model of the construction plan is to be limited to 23,189,000 m20 m2,000 m332,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000

B. On April 11, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant land subject to permission for development activities pursuant to Article 56 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), along with the condition that “I will implement a project like the details of permission, and if I wish to modify a project plan, I will implement a project after obtaining permission for modification.”

C. On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities (change) with the content that the lower part of the lower part of the instant land was 2.1m with earth and stone, and that the lower part was 1.5m high on the filled part. On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to engage in development activities (change) with respect to nine neighboring lots of land owned by the Plaintiff, other than the instant land.

On June 9, 2014, the Defendant obtained permission for development activities from the Plaintiff, and “the Plaintiff” did not obtain permission for development activities (a change) pursuant to Article 56(2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, as it performed construction works using soil and rocks different from the permitted project content after obtaining permission for development activities (location: B, and four parcels, and purpose: the creation of good farmland (land and sand).