1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. 11 persons, such as C and D, share B forest Eri-Gun, Cheongbuk-do (hereinafter “Eri-do”), 233,851 square meters, and F owns G forest land 2,380 square meters.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff is a person residing in H and engaged in agriculture, and the Plaintiff’s wife is the owner of J 1,253 square meters in the vicinity of each land.

B. On June 13, 2017, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to restore the instant forest pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act on the ground that the Plaintiff diverted the part of 1,220 square meters out of B forest land and G forest land (hereinafter “instant forest”) located within a mountainous district without obtaining permission for mountainous district conversion prescribed in Article 14(1) of the Mountainous Districts Management Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Ground of recognition】 Facts having no dispute, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On January 26, 1996, the Plaintiff’s assertion and its siblings specified the 3,000 square meters used as orchard B among the instant forest land.

In addition, the previous owners of the forest of this case have cultivated bamboo trees, pine trees, bamboo trees, etc. in the forest of this case since much more before the Plaintiff purchased them.

In addition, in addition to the part already used as an orchard as above, there was a broad access road to the forest of this case, to the extent that the bridges can be seen as a fluor, in order to enter the forest of this case into the K 2,476 square meters, J 1,253 square meters, L 1,378 square meters, and L 1,378 square meters (hereinafter “Adjoining land”).

Accordingly, the owners of the forest land of this case and adjacent land have been continuously repairing, maintaining, and managing the access road.

In addition, around April 2017, the Plaintiff was repairing and maintaining the valleys used as the above access roads and the orchard due to earth and sand and leaves, etc., and did not expand the access roads to the land more than the existing one or the new site was minated.

Ultimately, the forest of this case is classified as follows.