1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 29, 2012, the farming association corporation B (hereinafter “instant corporation”) filed an application with the Defendant for permission to divert farmland for the purpose of constructing a new agricultural product on the ground of 684m2, Jeollabuk-gun, Jeollabuk-do, Jeollabuk-do (hereinafter “instant land”).

On September 5, 2012, the Defendant granted permission under Article 34(2) of the Farmland Act on September 5, 2012 on the application of the instant legal entity and specified the following terms and conditions of consultation:

In the event of a breach of the following conditions with respect to the consultation terms, it would be subject to the cancellation of consultation or restoration to the original state pursuant to Articles 39 and 42 of the Farmland Act:

2. Where any of the projects referred to in Article 59 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act changes its use or any of the business types for the purpose of diversion of farmland is changed within five years from the date the purpose of diversion is completed (construction, etc.), approval for change of use shall be obtained in accordance with

4. The implementation of a project shall be carried out in accordance with the project plan submitted at the time of application for consultation, and, if a project plan is to be modified, shall obtain and implement modified consultation, and shall complete the measures for the preservation of farmland by installing fences, etc. at the boundary of the remaining farmland;

B. On September 7, 2012, the instant corporation began to construct the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”) after receiving a disposition of acceptance of a construction report from the Defendant to newly build retail stores of the building area of 96 square meters on the instant land.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission for farmland diversion consultation (change) on December 18, 2012 on the ground that the owner of the instant building was changed from the instant corporation to the Plaintiff, and obtained permission for farmland diversion consultation (change) from the Defendant on December 18, 2012, and obtained approval for use of the instant building on February 26, 2013.

On April 10, 2013, the Plaintiff reported general restaurant business to the Defendant on April 11, 2013 in order to operate a mutually cafeteria called “D cafeteria.”