1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial of the first instance do not differ significantly from the contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial of the first instance, and even if examining the Plaintiff’s assertion together with the evidence submitted in the first instance and the trial of the first instance, approval for use of agricultural infrastructure for purposes other than its original purpose is recognized as a broad discretion to the Defendant. The determination by the first instance court that the instant disposition did not deviate

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court on this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or deletion as follows. Thus, this Court cites it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

If the judgment of the court of first instance 4 pages 1, the "Defendant" shall be deleted.

Each of the "Korea Rural Community Corporation" in the judgment of the first instance, 5 pages 17 to 18, and 18, shall be deemed as the "Defendant".

6 pages 6 of the judgment of the first instance court, "this court" is deemed to be "the first instance court".

The 6th judgment of the first instance court, the 15th judgment of the 15th judgment, "Seoul 2004" as "Seoul 2004".

The 6th judgment of the first instance court is the 2016th judgment's 16th judgment's 2016 judgment's 201.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

After the closing of argument in the trial, the Plaintiff’s attorney applied for the resumption of argument while confirming that the Plaintiff’s property right protection, the necessity of approval for use other than the purpose of this case, the Defendant’s assertion is unreasonable, and applied for the resumption of argument. The Plaintiff’s attorney received the additional reference preparatory document.

However, even if examining the argument, it seems that the above conclusion is not likely to be followed, and it is not necessary to resume the pleading and further hear it, and it also seems that sufficient opportunity and time to prepare arguments up to the trial.