1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Hyundai Industrial Development, Seocheon Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seocheon Construction”), the Korea Highway Corporation as a violation of the Farmland Act and the Wastes Control Act, and the judicial police officers belonging to the F police station investigated the above accusation case (hereinafter “relevant accusation case”), and then sent the opinion of non-prosecution (with dismissal as to the violation of the Farmland Act, and with no suspicion as to the violation of the Wastes Control Act) to the C Branch Office of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office on March 21, 2012.

B. On April 5, 2012, the Prosecutor E of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office prepared a written decision of non-prosecution (hereinafter “written decision of non-prosecution”) (hereinafter “instant written decision of non-prosecution”). The written decision of non-prosecution of this case stated as follows: “The reason for non-prosecution as to the violation of the Wastes Control Act against the suspect, including the fact of each suspect, the development of suspect industry, the reason for non-prosecution against the Korea Expressway Corporation, and the reason for non-prosecution as to the violation of the Wastes Control Act against the development of a suspect, shall be invoked by a judicial police officer’s written opinion, and the fact that the Defendant already filed a summary order for the violation of the Farmland Act against the development of a suspect Seocheon was the same charge, and thus, the

C. On April 12, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Prosecutor E through the National Examination of the People’s Office for notification of the reason for non-prosecution regarding the relevant case pursuant to Article 259 of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “instant application”). On April 13, 2012, the C branch office of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office notified the Plaintiff of the reason for non-prosecution regarding the relevant case by attaching the instant non-prosecution decision to the notification of the reason for non-prosecution in the name of the head of the C branch office of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office,

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notification”). D.

The defendant succeeded to the management of his related complaint cases following his transfer to prosecutor E.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, and Eul evidence 1-1, 2.