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 April 25, 2006, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to B of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, 1861 square meters.

The above land is an agricultural and forest area and agricultural protection area, and the land category was changed to an orchard on June 29, 2006.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit with the Defendant on October 12, 2012, in order to construct a single-story house with a site area of 860 square meters and a total floor area of 117.67 square meters on the above land.

However, in the related department of the defendant, since the above land has high preservation value as excellent farmland, and the C reservoir and the fire, which are the habitats of rare and rare birds and aquatic plants, are located far away from 160 meters, the non-provisional opinion on the building permit was collected, the plaintiff withdrawn the above building permit application.

C. However, as a result of the on-site verification on the above land on March 17, 2014, the Defendant discovered that the Plaintiff installed prefabricated facilities (hereinafter “instant facilities”) of the size of 15 square meters (=3m x 5m) as follows on the said land.

On March 19, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant facilities were illegally constructed without a building report in violation of Article 14 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 12246, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter “the Building Act”). The Defendant issued a corrective order to voluntarily remove the violating buildings pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant to the effect that the instant facility constitutes a farmer’s license under the Farmland Act. However, on April 21, 2014, the Defendant sent a reply to the effect that the instant facility cannot be deemed a farmer’s license to the Plaintiff, and even the farmer’s license should be granted under the Building Act.

F. After that, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, which was dismissed on May 28, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] A.