1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. “C” located in five parcels, other than B, B, and five parcels (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff, was completed around 1945 and registered as agricultural infrastructure around 1988.

B. On March 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for disuse of agricultural production infrastructure on the instant land, which is part of the site of the instant reservoir. On April 17, 2014, the Defendant rendered a refusal disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the effect that “In the state where facilities, such as a water intake facility and a storm and flood control channel, remain on the instant reservoir, the instant reservoir is flowing into the reservoir through the irrigation and drainage channel, and the mountainous district in the upstream upstream of the instant reservoir and the excellent farmland are flowing into the reservoir through the irrigation and drainage, thereby maintaining the function of flood control (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the instant land remains a facility, such as a water intake facility and a water reservoir and a water reservoir, its form remains only, and its function has been lost, and the Defendant did not manage the instant land for a long time.

In addition, the land of this case has been used as general farmland for not less than 15 years, and is not in charge of flood control function.

Therefore, the instant disposition that serves as the ground for disposition that the flood control function is maintained is unlawful.

B. The main role of the reservoir in this case is the supply of agricultural water for each farmland, and since the DNA pumping station which replaces the reservoir in this case is completed in the vicinity of the land in this case, the supply of agricultural water to each farmland constitutes the reason for disuse of agricultural production infrastructure under Article 24 subparagraph 2 of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act.

Therefore, the defendant made the disposition of this case even though it should abolish the use of agricultural infrastructure for each of the land of this case.