1. On July 6, 2015, the disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff to restore part of the ditches B to its original state shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who has been engaged in agriculture from around 1996 to the present time in Jinju City C.

B. Around 2001, the Plaintiff opened a farm road and ditch (hereinafter “alternative ditch”) on part of the land D and E owned by the Plaintiff at the request of the neighboring residents.

C. The Plaintiff: (a) buried part of the instant ditches without obtaining permission from the competent authority; (b) installed a vinyl, which had been existing due to the construction of a substitute ditch, and cultivated crops by installing a vinyl house. (c) The Plaintiff buried part of the instant ditches without obtaining permission from the competent authority around 2001.

C In around 2002, in order to solve inconvenience and smooth drainage of residents, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs implemented the farming road and the ditch construction on the substitute ditch.

E. On June 9, 2015, the Defendant received a report from the Chyp head that the Plaintiff occupied and used public waters without permission. On July 6, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the restoration from illegal possession of public waters on the ground of violation of Article 8(1) of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act (hereinafter “Public Waters Act”).

(F) On July 23, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for exemption from the duty to restore public waters, but the Defendant rejected the application for exemption from the duty to restore public waters on July 31, 2015.

G. Although the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, the Plaintiff was dismissed on November 25, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6, each of the statements and images (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant of the Plaintiff’s implied consent did not take any measures to ensure that 15 years have passed since the Plaintiff buried part of the ditches of this case. Around 2002, the construction work of the farm road package and the ditch on the substitute ditches without the Plaintiff’s consent.