1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Disposition No. 2 is revoked.

The Defendant’s order to dispose of farmland on December 9, 2014, which was issued to the Plaintiff, is an order.

1. The grounds for the disposition, the appeal filed on August 12, 2005, the appeal filed on the invalidity of the disposition imposing a non-performance penalty, and the appeal filed on December 30, 2005, respectively.

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this part of the reasoning is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 2, 6, to 4, 14, e.g., the second to 6, etc. of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

나. 이 법원에서 고쳐쓰는 부분 ▣ 제1심판결서 3쪽 4행의 “원고가”를 “피고가”로 고친다.

C. The plaintiff added to this court asserts that this court does not have any explicit provision that it is impossible to file an administrative suit against the disposition imposing enforcement fines under the Farmland Act, and even in light of the need for the party's remedy for infringement of rights over which the litigation economy or the filing period has lapsed, the disposition imposing enforcement fines can be subject to administrative litigation, and that the disposition imposing enforcement fines can be subject to administrative litigation, and that 2) the disposition imposing enforcement fines in this case is interpreted as having the right to file an application under the law or at least the right to file

The above arguments made by the plaintiff in this court are not different from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the first instance court. The first instance court's decision rejecting the plaintiff's assertion on the grounds that the plaintiff's assertion was accepted prior to examining all the evidences submitted in the first instance court. Thus, the above argument by

2. Determination as to the claim for nullification of the farmland disposal order of this case

(a) as shown in the Attachment of the relevant statutes;

B. Determination of Article 12(1) of the Farmland Act provides, “The head of a Si/Gun/Gu may ex officio postpone a disposal order where a farmland owner who fails to dispose of the farmland subject to disposal within the period of obligation for disposal under Article 10(1) falls under any of the following: