1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff purchased 1,535 square meters and 648 square meters and 1,535 square meters and 648 square meters (hereinafter “instant farmland”) prior to D in the auction procedure for the real estate rent sale B in Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, and paid the sale price on April 4, 2013, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on the same day.

B. On March 5, 2014, the Defendant is expected to be determined as farmland subject to disposition under Article 10 of the Farmland Act on the ground that he/she acquired the instant farmland and did not use it for agricultural management even after he/she did not obtain it. As such, the Defendant notified that a hearing under Article 55 of the Farmland Act should be held on March 26, 2014, and the Plaintiff received the said notice directly on March 6, 2014.

C. On March 26, 2014, the Defendant held a hearing with respect to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff appeared to state his/her opinion, and submitted a written opinion on the same day.

On September 5, 2014, the Defendant did not use the instant farmland to the Plaintiff for agricultural management without justifiable grounds, and thus, notified the Plaintiff that the instant farmland should be disposed of within the disposal obligation period (from September 6, 2014 to September 5, 2015) (hereinafter “previous notification”). On December 22, 2015, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to dispose of the instant farmland within six months (by June 23, 2016) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not dispose of the said farmland within the said disposal obligation period.

E. The Defendant, on October 12, 2016, ordered the Plaintiff to do so.

The previous notification of this case was revoked ex officio on October 24, 2016 to October 28, 2016, on the ground that the procedure for verifying the perusal of the hearing record by the Plaintiff was omitted, and the Plaintiff confirmed the perusal of the hearing record by the Plaintiff during the period from October 24 to October 28, 2016, and notified the Plaintiff that he/she would be re-determined as the person subject to disposition and impose the obligation to dispose of farmland again. The Plaintiff received the said notification directly on October 14, 20

F. On November 3, 2016, the Defendant did not use the instant farmland for agricultural management without justifiable grounds to the Plaintiff.