1. On February 7, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposal order against the Plaintiff on February 7, 2014 regarding the return 3,976 square meters in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s farmland is the farmland owned by the Plaintiff, which is the 3,976 square meters of the paddy-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-si (hereinafter “instant farmland”).

B. The defendant confirmed that the plaintiff was not able to use the farmland of this case for agricultural management due to the suspension of the farmland of this case through the fact-finding survey conducted by the public official in charge of the farmland utilization on February 2, 2010, and from March 29, 2010 to the same year.

4. After undergoing the hearing procedure by the date of June 16, 201 pursuant to Article 10(1) and (2) of the Farmland Act, on May 3, 2010, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff that he/she is obligated to dispose of the farmland of this case within the period from May 3, 2010 to May 2, 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition notification”), and if he/she fails to dispose of the farmland of this case within the said period, he/she would be ordered to dispose of the farmland of this case. However, in cases where he/she uses the farmland for his/her own agricultural management during the said period, the order of disposal may be postponed for three years.

C. Since then, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff was using the farmland of this case for mushroom growing through a business trip investigation conducted by a public official in charge of the official in charge of May 18, 201, and subsequently suspended ex officio as of June 10, 201 pursuant to Article 12(1)1 of the Farmland Act, with the period from May 4, 2011 to May 2, 2014.

However, the defendant confirmed that the plaintiff was using the farmland of this case as a logistics warehouse through a business trip investigation conducted by a public official in charge of January 27, 2014, and on February 7, 2014, on the ground that the plaintiff did not use the farmland of this case for his/her own agricultural management during the grace period, on the ground that the plaintiff did not use the farmland of this case for his/her own agricultural management during the grace period.

6. During the period of September, 200, the farmland disposal order was issued to dispose of the farmland of this case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 2-1 through 4, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 6-1, and the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful