1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following part of the judgment of the court of first instance was modified, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part to be mard;

A. The first instance judgment of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “the first instance judgment”) and the first 10 pages 1 to 6 shall be followed as follows.

In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances as seen earlier, the Defendant did not secure access roads leading to the place of the instant application, and the disposition of this case was lawful, based on the fact-finding results and the entire purport of the pleading, based on the records and images of the evidence Nos. 14, 27, and 28, and the fact-finding results of this court’s fact-finding with respect to Jeollabuk-do and the entire purport of the pleading.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that there is no ground for disposition is without merit.

① The farmland in this case is part of the land owned by a person from neighboring citizens as a farmland site for the purpose of convenient farming of nearby farmland at the time when the land rearrangement project for the farmland in the zone was implemented in 2002, and it constitutes agricultural infrastructure as prescribed in subparagraph 6 of Article 2 of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act.

② Considering the circumstances leading up to the construction of the instant farm road, allowing the instant farm road to be used as an access road to the livestock pens of this case may be deemed to fall under the use of agricultural infrastructure for purposes other than its original purpose.

③ The Korea Rural Community Corporation, which manages the farm roads of this case, made it clear that the Plaintiff could not use the farm roads of this case for the purpose other than the purpose of farming nearby farmland, and the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to give consent to the neighboring beneficiaries in relation to the use of the farm roads of this case. Thus, the Defendant did not have to use the farm roads of this case for the purpose other than the purpose of farming nearby farmland.