1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are owners sharing 4,524 square meters of forest land in Sejong Special Self-Governing City (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On May 19, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a building report with the Defendant in order to newly build a detached house on the instant land, and filed an application for approval for use of agricultural infrastructure for the purpose other than the purpose of new construction of a detached house (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Sejong Special Self-Governing City to use some of G ditch 6,841 square meters (hereinafter “instant ditch”).

C. On June 12, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the refusal of the Plaintiffs’ building report on the ground that “the third party to the instant application (HJ Co., Ltd.) overlaps with the site of ditches being used with the approval for use other than its original purpose and is not permitted for use other than agricultural infrastructure due to traffic accidents concerns, etc.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the plaintiffs' claim utilization status of the ditches of this case, there is no basis and need to allow H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "H") to exclusively use the ditches of this case. On the other hand, the plaintiffs need to use the land of this case as the passage for the development of the land of this case.

Nevertheless, the rejection of the instant application is unlawful on the ground that the instant application had already been approved for use other than its original purpose.

In addition, the application in this case cannot be deemed as having concerns over the occurrence of a traffic accident, and even if there is little possibility of a traffic accident, it can be sufficiently prevented. Therefore, the rejection of the application in this case on the grounds of concerns over the occurrence of a

(b) Appendix attached to the relevant legislation;