The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment by this court, and thus, it is identical to the description on the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

2. The defendant asserts that this court's additional decision in this court is the reason for appeal that "the land category on the public register is 985 square meters in Pyeongtaek-si J Do (hereinafter "the land in this case"), the plaintiff's lease and use the land in this case as farmland so that the lease relationship is terminated, and at the same time it was possible to restore the land to farmland, and even if the land owner restores the land to miscellaneous land, it cannot be subject to regulation such as restriction on farmland ownership or disposal under the Farmland Act, and compensation for losses due to the lessor's land owner's "miscellaneous land", it is reasonable to regard the use of the land as farmland in this case as temporary use."

The above assertion made by the defendant in the court of first instance is not different from the contents of the defendant's assertion. The decision of the court of first instance that rejected the defendant's assertion for the same reasons as cited above is just (Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Farmland Act provides that the land actually used as farmland regardless of its legal category is farmland. The plaintiff cultivated crops on the land of this case for at least ten years, and Article 77 (2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects provides that if the farmland owner and the actual cultivator are different, a person entitled to compensation may be determined through consultation. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed land temporarily used as farmland on the ground that the above circumstances are above.)