1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 17, 2003, C donated the farmland of this case to the Plaintiff A, D, and E (F), a child, and the Plaintiff B (the wife of the Plaintiff A), who is skid, to the Plaintiff B (hereinafter “the farmland of this case”). On October 30, 2003, Plaintiff A, after consultation on the partition of the co-owned property on October 30, 2003, jointly owned the farmland of this case at the rate of 827/1,653 and Plaintiff B 826/1,653.

B. As a result of the fact-finding survey on the utilization of farmland in 201, the Defendant: (a) deemed the farmland of this case as farmland not used for agricultural management in the state of “displacement”; and (b) on May 7, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice of obligation to dispose of farmland to the Plaintiffs under Article 10(1)1 and (2) of the former Farmland Act (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013) by setting the period of obligation to dispose of farmland from the same day until May 6, 2013 (1 year).

C. On June 7, 2013, the Defendant: (a) confirmed that the Plaintiffs used the instant farmland as a site or building without good cause without using it for agricultural management; and (b) issued an order to dispose of the instant farmland from January 17, 2014 to July 16, 2014 (6 months) in accordance with Article 11(1) of the Farmland Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On June 27, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an objection to the defendant immediately after the disposition of this case, and the defendant respondeded to the purport that the disposition of this case is legitimate, and thus, the farmland of this case should be disposed of by July 16, 2014 in accordance with the above disposition.

E. The Plaintiffs are not the instant disposition, but the instant disposition.

On September 24, 2014, the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal against the response stated in the paragraph, and the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission made a decision to dismiss on the ground that “the reply was de facto notified of the content of the instant disposition, and thus does not constitute a disposition subject to an administrative appeal.”