1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to temporarily use farmland for other purposes (hereinafter “instant application”) pursuant to Article 36(1)1 of the Farmland Act on September 23, 2014 and Article 37(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act in order to install a simple agricultural disposal facility on the instant farmland, among the owners of 1,435 square meters (hereinafter “instant farmland”) among the instant farmland, which is farmland under the Farmland Act.

B. On October 2, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of refusal against the instant application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) and the grounds for non-permission stated in the written disposition are as follows.

The relevant farmland needs to be preserved pursuant to Article 37 (2) 1 of the Farmland Act, which is the excellent farmland where agricultural production infrastructure is well-established and formed in a group as an agricultural promotion area, and is in conformity with the project plan under Article 37 (2) 4 of the Farmland Act, and is determined to interfere with the preservation and agricultural management of agricultural roads, such as vehicle movement, etc. pursuant to Article 37 (2) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, and the consultation on temporary use of the relevant farmland for other purposes pursuant to Article 37 of the Farmland Act and Article 37 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

C. On November 26, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 28, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. According to Article 37(2)1 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, when examining whether to permit temporary use of agricultural products for the purpose of installing simple agricultural products treatment facilities, whether the farmland in question constitutes excellent farmland with preserved value cannot be the standard for examination.

Nevertheless, the defendant is farmland on the ground that the subject land of this case is excellent farmland worth preserving.