1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff delegated the Defendant with respect to the permission, etc. to divert farmland to 1,195 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) prior to the Haan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff. In accordance with the Defendant’s instruction, the instant land was subject to the order to restore the instant land to its original state by receiving an order to restore the instant land from the Haan-gun Office, by failing to perform delegated affairs, such as permission to divert farmland, etc., and the Defendant, upon receiving an order to restore the instant land to its original state, thereby causing damage, such as concrete packaging costs

B. Considering the absence of dispute between the parties to the judgment, or the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, and 9 (including household numbers), the fact that the plaintiff was ordered to restore the land of this case, the land category of which is "former", to its original state after being ordered to restore the land to its original state on the ground that the plaintiff had done the aforementioned construction work before obtaining permission on diversion of farmland from the Ha

However, even though the delegation contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was concluded, the Defendant did not implement the delegation contract.

There is no evidence to deem that the Defendant ordered the construction of concrete packaging works and the construction of buildings on the instant land without obtaining any permission on diversion of farmland.

(C) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s testimony and witness evidence Nos. 10 and witness D cannot be admitted as evidence, or from the Plaintiff, and thus, it is difficult to believe it as it is. Furthermore, in light of the aforementioned evidence, the Plaintiff is aware that the Plaintiff had been engaged in concrete packaging construction, etc. even though it was not yet permitted to divert the farmland of this case. As such, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff should bear the damages incurred therefrom, and it is difficult to view that

2. Conclusion.