1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 11, 2015, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to complete the restoration to the original state by April 13, 2015, pursuant to Article 42 of the Farmland Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s use of the land B in the water market in the water market in the water market (hereinafter “instant land”) without obtaining a farmland diversion permit violates Article 34 of the Farmland Act.

(hereinafter “Prior Disposition”)

B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on April 27, 2015.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant prior disposition with the Daegu District Court 2015Guhap853, but the court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 25, 2015.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed as Daegu High Court 2015Nu6300. On February 5, 2016, the appellate court revoked the judgment of the first instance court and rendered a judgment revoking the instant prior disposition on the grounds that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff during the instant prior disposition or did not provide an opportunity to present opinions.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to complete restoration to its original state by October 12, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff still illegally diverts the instant land without obtaining permission on diversion of farmland, following prior notice on August 31, 2015.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Disposition of this case’s ground for recognition】 There is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 (including additional number), Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was newly made by the Defendant during the appellate trial of the revocation lawsuit against the preceding disposition. The instant disposition was invalid or unlawful because it constitutes a double disposition that circumvents the Plaintiff’s right to file a lawsuit under Article 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

In addition, the plaintiff is extremely mentally ill due to the defendant's illegal disposition.