logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.11.15 2018고정381
농지법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the owner of farmland outside the agriculture promotion area, which is 3,104 square meters prior to F in Kimpo-si (hereinafter “the farmland of this case”), and G is a person engaged in civil engineering construction business.

A person who intends to divert farmland shall obtain permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry.

Nevertheless, on September 5, 2016, the Defendant demanded G to reclaim the said farmland to the firstman, and accordingly, G had H, who is a dump truck engineer, buried soil and rocks that are inappropriate for recycling and cultivating aggregate, using a dump truck, from September 5, 2016 to September 12, 2016.

As a result, Defendant and G conspiredd to divert farmland outside the agricultural promotion area without obtaining the above permission.

2. Review of the records of this case reveals the following facts.

On November 2015, the Defendant sought to reclaim farmland due to earth and sand coming from the subway construction site through the Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and received the president of K company L through the J agency affiliated with I in the construction site of Kimpo-si.

L introduced G as it is inappropriate for the Defendant to go through the subway construction site, and the Defendant and G made several calls related to the reclamation of the farmland in this case.

G had H, which is a dump truck engineer, buried soil and rocks, etc. inappropriate for the cultivation of recycled aggregate and crops using dump trucks between September 5, 2016 and September 12, 2016.

On September 2016, 2016, the Defendant buried in G with bad soil at the site of reclamation without consultation with him/her.

At the time of the subsection, the reclamation was suspended, and G was demanded to restore it to its original state.

Accordingly, the reclamation of the farmland in this case was suspended.

G has invadedd neighboring farmland in the course of reclaiming the farmland of this case, and the Defendant has changed the survey expenses and has changed them from G.

arrow