1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 27, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a construction report (hereinafter “instant report”) with the Defendant on March 27, 2019, to newly construct a total of 2,388.72 square meters of the building area of a building with a light steel structure, metal board, roof building for the use of the same and plant-related facilities (a mushroom cultivation company) on the ground of budgetary field B 5,914 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”), and filed an application for permission to engage in development activities (construction of structures) with the intent to install solar-lights for solar development on the roof of the instant building.

B. On May 10, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to accept the instant report for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”). A.

Pursuant to Article 56(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Article 56(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 56(1)1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 56(1)1-A-1 of the Criteria for Permission for Development Activities, it is not a group of birds, trees, etc., but does not fall under the good farmland, etc. and thus need to be preserved. However, the applicant shall be the good farmland that needs to be preserved for the environment of agricultural management, the group of the farmland is large, the scale of the

(b) as much;

Pursuant to Article 58(1)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 56(1)1-2 and attached Table 1-2, 1-(d)-1 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, buildings, such as the actual conditions of the use of land in surrounding areas and the land utilization plan, shall not harmonize with the surrounding environment and scenery, but animal and plant-related facilities (a mushroom farming company) shall not be in harmony with the surrounding rural climate. Finally, the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition / [the grounds for recognition], A, B, 1, 2,

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is questionable as to whether the instant application is the superior farmland, and if the instant report is accepted, there is also concern that the application for permission to build new facilities related to animals and plants similar to the neighboring farmland will rapidly increase, thereby planting the superior farmland.