1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 18, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted a construction waste disposal business plan (hereinafter “instant business plan”) to the Defendant, stating that he/she will engage in an interim disposal business (hereinafter “instant business”) collecting and transporting construction waste (excluding waste concrete, waste asphalt concrete, mixed construction waste, and 4 kinds of construction waste) in five lots, other than 1,917 square meters, prior to Gwangju Mine-gu A (hereinafter “instant prospective project site”).

B. On May 14, 2013, the Defendant issued an improper notification to the instant business plan on the ground that the instant project plan does not meet the standards for examination of permission for diversion of farmland under Article 33(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25050, Dec. 30, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act”) with respect to farmland among the instant prospective site for the instant project, on the grounds that: (a) the previous 1,917 square meters and the previous 1,557 square meters of farmland belonging to the Gwangju Mine

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 6, and Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Guidelines for the Management and Recycling of Construction Wastes (No. 471, Oct. 29, 2012; hereinafter “construction waste disposal guidelines”) are as follows:

(2) According to the project plan, the project plan is in conflict with other laws that restrict installation of waste disposal facilities, but the reason that the farmland is in conflict with the Farmland Act is not a law that restricts installation of waste disposal facilities. Thus, the reason that the project plan of this case goes against the Farmland Act cannot be a reason for disposal. (2) The project plan of this case satisfies all the criteria required under the environment-related Acts and subordinate statutes. The location of concrete products manufacturing factories, synthetic resin processing companies, etc. in the vicinity of the project scheduled site of this case is located, and it is difficult to view that there is no possibility of