농지전용부담금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. In accordance with the Special Act on the Construction and Support of Innovation Cities Following Relocation of Public Agencies and the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the Plaintiff and the Jeonbuk Development Corporation (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) as joint implementers, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs transferred ocean-related affairs to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries around March 2013, the name was changed to “Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport”.
In this case, the issue is whether the imposition of farmland preservation charges as of December 24, 2012 is legitimate or not, and thus, it shall be stated in the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs as the name at the time of the disposition for convenience
On September 4, 2007, the development plan was approved for the project for the development of the Jeonju Innovation City (hereinafter “instant project”) with respect to the land of 10,144,755 square meters in the documents of the Jeonju-si, the Jeonju-si, the Jeonju-si, the chronic Dong, the Jeonbuk-gun, and the Jeonbuk-gun, the Jeonbuk-si, the Seoul-si, and the Seoul-do implementation plan was approved on March 208.
B. In approving the above implementation plan on February 21, 2008, the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries transferred fishery-related affairs to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries on March 2013, 2013, and its name was changed to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
In this case, the issue is whether the imposition of farmland preservation charges as of December 24, 2012 is legitimate or not, and thus, the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, which is the name at the time of the disposition, shall be stated as
With the Defendant delegated the authority to consult on farmland diversion, the Defendant consulted on farmland diversion with respect to the land whose land category on the public register is farmland, such as the paddy field, etc. on June 25, 2008. On June 25, 2008, the Defendant imposed farmland preservation charges of KRW 17,783,54,680 on the said farmland to the Plaintiff, etc., and the Plaintiff, etc. paid the said farmland preservation charges to the Intervenor entrusted with the duties of receiving farmland preservation charges pursuant to relevant statutes on July 2008.
C. Afterward, the Plaintiff et al. is subject to the amendment of the internal development plan around March 201.