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 reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff’s assertion as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. In light of the past history of allowing many building permits accompanying farmland diversion in similar cases, the Defendant’s assertion that rejected the application for permission only for the instant application for permission is a discrimination without reasonable grounds and is in violation of the principle of equality, and thus, is unlawful by abusing discretion.

B. Determination 1) The National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”)

) Permission for development activities under Article 56 of this Act and consultation on permission for conversion of farmland under Article 34 of the Farmland Act have a discretionary authority to determine whether the requirements for prohibition are met, since there are many parts of the requirements for prohibition as indefinite concepts, and thus, whether such requirements are met belongs to the discretionary jurisdiction of an administrative agency. Furthermore, permission for changing the form and quality of land within a specific-use area under the National Land Planning Act, which entails diversion of farmland, has the nature of a building permit under Article 11(1) of the Building Act, permission for development activities and permission for conversion of farmland, as well as the above permission for conversion of farmland, constitutes discretionary action. Accordingly, in principle, judicial review thereof is limited to whether there is deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, taking into account the room for discretion on public interest determination by an administrative agency. The criteria for judgment are whether there is a violation of the principle of proportionality and proportionality. With respect to abuse of discretionary power, a person who disputes the validity of such administrative act is liable to prove and prove his/her assertion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Du48956).