1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On around 1993, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit from the Defendant in order to construct a building on the ground of the 86 square meters of a steel farm building B, Gangwon-do, the Ministry of National Defense, and C, the 820 square meters of a ditch (hereinafter “instant land”) located on the ground of the 28.05 square meters of a brick floor, 1st floor, a rest area of 82.45 square meters of a 1st floor, and a neighborhood living facility building (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Around May 31, 1993, the Plaintiff completed a pre-use inspection on the instant building. On August 17, 1993, the Plaintiff completed a general restaurant business report to the Defendant and operated a store and restaurant business at this place.

C. On December 4, 1998, the Plaintiff succeeded to Nonparty D’s wife and Nonparty D, and D reported the closure of business on April 25, 201.

On May 201, the Plaintiff reported the business of food service business (general restaurant) to the Defendant on the instant building. However, on May 18, 2011, the Defendant did not accept the business report on the ground that it was a restricted area under Article 32 of the Farmland Act.

E. On July 3, 2014, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s civil petition counter and consulted whether it is possible to report food service business (general restaurant business) again. The Defendant held a working-level comprehensive deliberation council for the convenience of civil petitioners prior to the Plaintiff’s submission of the Plaintiff’s business report in accordance with the prior consultation system. After that, the Plaintiff visited the civil petition counter again, the Defendant’s public official who belongs to the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the results of deliberation and provided explanation that “The land on which the instant building is located is subject to restriction on activities as an agricultural promotion area under

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap's entries in Gap's Evidence No. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and Eul's Evidence No. 1, and the whole purport of pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant land is not located in the agriculture promotion area, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of non-acceptance of the Defendant’s business report premised on this is unlawful. (2) The Plaintiff shall make a report in accordance with the relevant statutes at the time of