1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On February 23, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased 2,657 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”) and 2 buildings on the ground from Gangnam-gun, Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant application site”) on February 23, 2017, and completed each registration of ownership transfer on March 13, 2017.

The use of the above building (general steel structure, steel pipe structure), respectively, is a stable (398 square meters) and a compost (125 square meters).

On March 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities (such as changing land form and quality) regarding the instant application area pursuant to Article 57(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

[Purposes of Development Activities: Creation of a site for expansion of animal and plant facilities (a stable and compost), the area of which is 2,657 square meters). On May 30, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to refuse the instant application to the Plaintiff on June 12, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), following deliberation by the Urban and Gun Planning Committee development activities by the Crossing-gun Urban Planning Committee, and the reasons therefor are as follows.

The plaintiff filed an objection against the disposition of this case, and the defendant rejected the plaintiff's objection on July 17, 2017.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, and the Gangwon-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on November 6, 2017.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, entry of Gap's 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the form of evidence, and entry of the whole purport of the pleading in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion due to the following reasons.

The defendant's disposition of this case is within good farmland such as arable land rearrangement presented by the defendant.