1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as follows, and such reasoning is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The part used in the amendment shall be referred to as "the answer" in the 5th and 14th of the judgment of the first instance.

The 5th and 20th of the judgment of the first instance court "the result of the plaintiff's personal examination" shall be "the result of the plaintiff's personal examination of the first instance court".

The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance " was registered as a business operator," and the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

【The Plaintiff was registered as a business operator. While operating K and L as above during the retention period of the instant land, the Plaintiff recorded the annual total sales from KRW 800 million to KRW 1.7 billion, which amount to less than the following table. As such, insofar as the Plaintiff was operating two businesses, it appears that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to continuously engage in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on the instant land or carrying not less than half of farming works, or to engage in cultivating or cultivating crops by carrying one-half or more of the farming works on his own labor. The Plaintiff appears to have been in the following:

【Plaintiff acquired the instant land at the time of the first instance trial’s questioning, and around June 2012, 2012, had had rice sheds before performing the farmland banking work. However, he was in charge of rice paddys, frys, rice beers, and slopings, etc. to the neighboring fluor, and such work was carried out using machinery, such as blackers, fluors, compacters, etc. The Plaintiff stated that he was carried out. As such, insofar as the Plaintiff had allowed others to carry out the instant land by using machinery, it cannot be deemed that he cultivated or cultivated crops by carrying not less than half of the farming work into his own labor force, as long as he had others carry out the instant land by using machinery.”