[2] Whether the right to claim a farmland creation cost and the refund of exclusive charges under Article 56(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, and Article 52-8(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Special Measures for the Development of Farmland, and whether the right to claim a refund becomes final and conclusive (negative

[2] Article 56 (1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15135, Aug. 8, 1996); Article 52-8 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Special Measures for the Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16646, Dec. 28, 199); and Article 52-8 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Special Measures for the Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16646, Dec. 28, 199) provide for refund procedures for refund of refund and additional dues for which the payer's claim for refund has already been finalized

Article 40 (1) of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 6597 of Jan. 14, 202; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the farmland creation cost shall be paid to the person who operates and manages the farmland management fund. According to Articles 27 and 32 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 5153 of Aug. 8, 1996), the Government shall establish the Farmland Management Fund and have the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry operate and manage it. Thus, the owner of the farmland creation cost shall be the State, and Article 45-2 (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Special Measures for the Development of Farmland (amended by Act No. 5758 of Feb. 5, 199; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the farmland creation cost shall not be refunded to the special account for improving the structure of agricultural and fishing villages, and the amount of refund money shall not be refunded to the State or the head of the Gu, which is the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Development Fund.

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding. The plaintiff paid the farmland creation cost, etc. to the National Treasury finally through the Gyeongbuk-do Governor, the Do governor, the Do governor, and the Do governor, and the Do governor, and the Do governor, who were delegated with the authority by the Do governor, and the Do governor, and the Do governor. The plaintiff was deemed to have extinguished the grounds for imposing the farmland creation cost, etc. or cancelled the permission to divert farmland, and there were grounds for refunding the above farmland creation cost, etc., but the defendant who is the successor of the Do governor and the Do governor, the Do governor, or the Do governor, the Do governor, and the Do governor, who were delegated with the authority by the Do governor, and the Do governor, and the Do governor, and the Do governor, were not obligated to pay the farmland creation cost, etc., the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for refunding the farmland creation cost, and the plaintiff's claim for refunding the farmland development cost.

In light of the above legal principles, in this case, where the plaintiff who paid the farmland creation cost, etc. seeks the return of the refund, such as the farmland creation cost, as unjust enrichment, on the ground that the grounds that the grounds for imposing the farmland creation cost, etc. have ceased to exist or that permission for farmland diversion has been revoked, the duty to return the refund shall be deemed the country to which the above farmland creation cost, etc. belongs. However, the court below's decision to the effect that the defendant's obligation to return the refund to the plaintiff is finalized only by the decision on the refund of the farmland creation cost, etc. on the premise that the defendant is the person liable to return the refund. However, since the claim for the refund of this case is limited to

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)