1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a construction report with the Defendant on June 27, 2015, with the content that a single house of 659 square meters (a total floor area of 106.74 square meters and a house for farming) was newly built on the first floor (hereinafter “instant report”) among B 1,393 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”).

B. On July 13, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that the instant report cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

The farmland conversion permission (report) is not allowed (the grounds for one disposition)

(a) Grounds for non-consultation (Article 33 (1) 4 (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act): It shall be intended to preserve an agricultural environment, such as securing water sources and preserving water quality in an agricultural protection zone;

(b) Alternative: If it is possible in light of the regulations on the examination of permission to divert farmland, no consultation on permission to engage in development activities is possible (2

(a) Grounds: Consultation cannot be held under the following conditions pursuant to Articles 56 and 58 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter referred to as the "National Land Planning Act"), Article 56 and attached Table 1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Chapter 3 of the Operational Guidelines for Permission of Development Activities, and Article 20 of the Jinju City Urban Planning Ordinance (Standards for Development Acts) as regards development activities: The application of this case is located at the upstream of a reservoir in the relevant area and its surrounding areas, which is likely to cause environmental pollution, damage caused by water pollution, soil contamination, etc., due to development activities, etc.

C. On July 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Standing Committee on Administrative Appeals (Seoul-do), but the Gyeongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on September 29, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 7's each entry (including number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole oral argument

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s claim 11 grounds that the instant application site is located within the agricultural protection zone, but the area where the land was arable.