1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Korea (competent: National Defense Facility Headquarters or Air Force Training Flight Group 3; hereinafter referred to as the “Air Force Flight Group”) ordered the Air Force Base Packaging Work in Sacheon-si, Gyeongcheon-si, which was ordered to do so, and the gold Industry Co., Ltd. and four companies, both of which were awarded contracts on October 4, 201.

On June 17, 2011, the Air Force Flight Group filed an application for consultation on the diversion of farmland with respect to the 1109 square meters and 24 square meters (area 109,872 square meters) of the YY-dong, Sacheon-si, Sacheon-si, which is farmland to be incorporated into the said construction work, and submitted a business plan stating that the purpose of exclusive use is “the project to remove the vulnerability to the safety of the flight of the runway north side of the air Force Base, as the project to remove the vulnerability, and after removing the obstacles, the remaining sand collected after the camping was cut, will be used in the site of the accommodation of the reserve forces owned by the neighboring Ministry of National Defense (the business period, August 201, 205).

On August 1, 2011, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor requested the Special Metropolitan City Mayor to consult on farmland diversion, and the Special Metropolitan City Do Governor consented to the request for consultation on farmland diversion submitted by the Special Metropolitan City Mayor on the condition that the project plan or the area acquired as farmland should be changed if it is implemented by the submitted project plan, and the change of the project plan or the area acquired as farmland should be subject to consultation on farmland diversion, and thereafter, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor notified the Air Force Flight Association of the above matters of consultation

(hereinafter referred to as the above, farmland subject to the farmland diversion consultation in this case among the farmland subject to the farmland diversion consultation. (b)

On January 3, 2012, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the cutting of mountain ground, which is part of the entire construction works, from four companies, other than the Geum Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction works”), and agreed to substitute the remaining aggregate from among aggregate generated in the course of cutting of mountain ground, with the proceeds from the outside sale.

C. The Plaintiff is part of the farmland subject to the farmland diversion consultation in this case.