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 May 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission for development activities (hereinafter “instant application”) with respect to the conversion of the instant land’s ground-based facilities into agricultural and fishery products processing facilities with respect to the land of this case, which is farmland, with respect to the land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On June 12, 2015, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s instant application on the ground that “The instant land is a good farmland with high agricultural productivity and preservation value as it was improved, such as arable land rearrangement in the agricultural promotion area, and the relevant farmland is converted, and is inappropriate for the purpose of agricultural and fishery product processing facilities under the project plan, and thus, it goes against the examination standards under Article 37(2) of the Farmland Act and Article 33(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s application of this case is rejected pursuant to Article 33(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on September 9, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 14 and 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Of the Defendant’s grounds for the instant disposition by the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 procedural defect, the part of “a superior farmland worth agricultural productivity and preservation” and “fluorial fear of fluoral erosion of neighboring farmland” do not constitute the grounds for rejection of the land return disposition, for which no permission may be granted in light of the Farmland Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof.

In addition, if there is any defect in documents submitted by an applicant pursuant to Article 33 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, the applicant shall be requested to supplement or correct the documents within a reasonable period. The defendant stated that it is improper to the purpose of the plaintiff's business plan at the time of the disposition in this case.