1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the land category of the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case is classified into “the answer,” the current status is being used as a construction waste storage station or a storage yard for solid water for about 14 years. Since it is not easy to restore the current state as farmland, it does not constitute “farmland” which is subject to permission for exclusive use under Article 34(1) of the Farmland Act.

The plaintiff can prevent the dispute by not receiving an order for restoration from the defendant to farmland or an order for disposal of farmland after confirming that each of the lands of this case is not farmland. Thus, the lawsuit of this case has the benefit of confirmation.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that each of the lands of this case was used as a construction waste storage place with the permission to temporarily use the land for other purposes and with the approval of the installation of a temporary construction waste storage place for the same purpose, and the construction of the block environment was used for the same purpose with the extension of the above permission and approval. In light of the application for the permission to temporarily use the land of this case for other purposes at the time of the expiration of the period of use, the construction of the block environment was to restore it to the farmland where agricultural management is possible at the time of the expiration of the period of use, and the application for the permission to temporarily use the land of this case was filed by the construction of the luki environment with respect to each of the lands of this case, the status of each of the land

3. Determination

A. (1) In a lawsuit seeking confirmation whether the benefit of confirmation exists, there must be the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation must be immediately removed because the plaintiff's right or legal status is unstable and dangerous, and such unstable;