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 March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a building report (hereinafter “instant building report”) pursuant to Article 14(2) and Article 14(1)2 of the Building Act with a view to newly constructing a “farmer’s house” on the land area of 650 square meters, total area of 198.24 square meters, and area of 2 stories on the ground, which is farmland within the agriculture promotion zone.

B. Accordingly, on March 25, 2016, the Defendant requested a consultation on the diversion of farmland on the said farmer’s housing site (hereinafter “instant site”) to the Gangseo-gu Mayor (hereinafter “instant diversion of farmland”), and the Gangnam-gu Mayor notified the father’s consent on March 30, 2016.

C. On March 31, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff to return the instant building report pursuant to Article 33(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The instant land need to be continuously preserved for the purpose of using and preserving farmland as excellent farmland where agricultural infrastructure facilities, such as land rearrangement and irrigation facilities, are well-organizedd, and there is concern over the chain of chain of chain of the farmland in the surrounding area due to farmland diversion. Therefore, the instant farmland diversion cannot meet the examination criteria for permission for farmland diversion under Article 33(1)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27628, Nov. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same).”

On April 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Gangwon-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 13, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, 4, 8, 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 diverts the farmland to a farmer’s housing site is only a report on farmland conversion pursuant to Article 35 of the Farmland Act, and is not a matter of permission.

Nevertheless, Article 33(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act is based on the premise that the Defendant is permitted to divert the farmland of this case.