1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff is holding or managing several parcels of land, other than 2,413 square meters, prior to D, Gyeongdong-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).

Plaintiff

In addition, although the clan used the instant land as a farming road for a long time and used it for farming in the Plaintiff’s land, it was no longer possible to enter the farming machine any longer due to the change of the form and quality of the instant land without permission, and thus, the clan requests that the illegal change of the form and quality issue a restoration order or directly restore the original state so that the farming machine can enter the instant land.

On July 20, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the head of Sildong-gun for a request to reinstate the land of 390 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) to its original state to the degree that agricultural machinery can have access, as follows:

(hereinafter “instant application for restitution”). (b)

On July 31, 2018, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for restitution of the instant case on the ground that “In order to implement the said project in a situation where a large number of civil petitions are received on B, it constitutes matters to be taken after comprehensively examining the opinions of residents, prior consultation with the owners of land incorporated for public project, etc.”

(hereinafter “instant reply”). C.

On September 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition for adjudication on the performance of its duties with the same purport as the instant application for restitution against the head of Sildong-do Administrative Appeals Commissions, but the said petition was dismissed on October 29 of the same year on the ground that “the requirements for the request for adjudication were not satisfied, and thus, is unlawful.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, and Eul No. 1 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was used as a concentration for 30 years, and after the change of the form and quality without permission, the Plaintiff lost the function of the concentration of access to the agricultural machinery, and the Defendant did so.