1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for use of 24 square meters (hereinafter “the instant ditch part”) out of the Defendant’s Defendant’s facilities located in Chungcheongnam-gun Hong-gun, the agricultural infrastructure managed by the said Defendant, for the purpose other than the purpose of using the agricultural infrastructure for the Plaintiff’s new construction as drainage pipes and entry into the livestock raising facilities.

B. Next, on September 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to construct a livestock raising facility (hereinafter “instant livestock shed”) on the ground and Hongsung-gun Hong-gun, Hongsung-gun, D, and E (hereinafter “instant livestock shed”).

C. On October 12, 2017, the Defendant Corporation rejected the Plaintiff’s application for use for purposes other than the above purpose on the ground that “it is deemed difficult to grant permission because the result of on-site investigation conducted on the application for use permission to open and open a drainage pipe using the ditch part of the instant case, as the result of the on-site investigation, the cause of dispute or the risk of civil

(hereinafter “instant disposition of non-permission of use”). D.

Defendant Hong-gun, on October 20, 2017, failed to meet the requirement that the instant livestock shed be adjacent to a road with a width of at least four meters available for pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic, and rejected the Plaintiff’s application for the above building permit on the ground that the instant livestock shed failed to obtain the permission for the use of agricultural infrastructure from the Defendant Construction Corporation.

(hereinafter “this case’s non-permission of construction”). [The grounds for recognition: Gap’s evidence No. 1, 2, 3, and 4]

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. As to the disposition of non-permission of use of the instant agricultural infrastructure under Article 23(1) of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, permission for use of agricultural infrastructure other than those under Article 23(2) of the same Act shall be deemed to be a binding act that must be granted unless it obstructs the original purpose or use of the relevant agricultural infrastructure in light of the purport of paragraph (2) of the same Article.