1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the claim for nullification of the imposition of enforcement fines and revocation of each disposition of rejection.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 23, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired 1,107 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On August 20, 2010, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he/she was liable to dispose of the instant land from September 1, 2010 to August 31, 201, which is the period of disposition obligation pursuant to Article 10 of the Farmland Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not use the instant land for agricultural management.

C. On August 30, 201, the Defendant confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff was preparing for farming by removing and molding the land from the camping site through on-site verification of the instant land, and subsequently suspended ex officio an order to dispose of the instant land by setting the grace period from December 12, 201 to December 11, 2014 pursuant to Article 12 of the Farmland Act, on December 12, 2011, with the period of grace from December 12, 201 to December 11, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant postponement disposition”) D.

On October 30, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the instant land was not used for agricultural management through on-site verification, and ordered on December 9, 2014, the Defendant to dispose of the instant land by setting the disposal period from December 9, 2014 to June 8, 2015 pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Farmland Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant farmland disposal order”). (e)

On August 12, 2015, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 38,87,840 on the Plaintiff under Article 62(1) of the Farmland Act on August 12, 2015, when the Plaintiff did not dispose of the instant land within the disposal period.

(f) On December 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a motion to suspend the instant farmland disposal order and revoke the instant disposition. However, on the same day, the Plaintiff rejected the motion.

(hereinafter "each rejection disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the part of the lawsuit of this case concerning the confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of this case and the revocation of each disposition of this case is legitimate

A. Claim for nullification of the instant disposition.