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

A. On November 30, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) as to D-2,967 square meters of land for a factory in Gwangju Mine-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) and building on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) and acquired ownership of the instant land and building on March 20, 2017.

B. Meanwhile, on October 29, 2013, the Defendant approved the new establishment of a factory on the instant land, which was farmland for a company outside the bonded area, and reduced or exempted farmland preservation charges on the condition that the exempted farmland should be imposed, if the purpose and purpose of use are different from that of the diversion permission, within five years from the date of completion of the diversion permission pursuant to Article 40 of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 14985, Oct. 31, 2017; hereinafter the same) and Article 59 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28653, Feb. 13, 2018; hereinafter the same).

C. On October 26, 2017, in which five years have not passed since the completion of the purpose of farmland diversion, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval of change of purpose of farmland diversion to use for resource circulation facilities, not for manufacturing business. On November 1, 2017, the Defendant imposed farmland preservation charges of KRW 89,010,000 (hereinafter “instant farmland preservation charges”) on the Plaintiff and approved the said application for change of purpose of use.

On November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 89,010,000 of the farmland preservation charges in this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A(including branch numbers), Evidence B(1) and 2(2), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not constitute a reduction of or exemption from the farmland diversion charges from the beginning. Therefore, the Defendant should have imposed the farmland diversion charges on the Nonparty Company. The Nonparty Company shall be granted a reduction of or exemption from the farmland diversion charges, and the Plaintiff shall impose the farmland preservation charges of KRW 89,010,000 on the Plaintiff.