2. The costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Korea Rural Community Corporation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are borne by the

On June 20, 2016, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (hereinafter “Defendant Minister”) and the Korea Rural Community Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) revoke the disposition of imposition of farmland preservation charges on each of the lands listed in the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the first instance (hereinafter “instant land”) in the disposition of imposition of farmland preservation charges imposed on the Plaintiff on June 20, 2016 (the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the lawsuit against the Defendant of the first instance trial and the Seoul Regional Aviation Administration).

2. Purport of appeal

[2] Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant Corporation shall be revoked. The imposition of farmland preservation charges on the instant land shall be revoked by Defendant Corporation on June 20, 2016, among the disposition imposing farmland preservation charges imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff.

[Defendant Minister] Of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant Minister, the portion of farmland preservation charges of KRW 16,602,482,670 (the “10,728,430,650” stated in the written complaint of appeal seems to be clerical error) is revoked, excluding farmland preservation charges on land No. 65,74 in the annexed list No. 1 of the judgment of first instance. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Minister corresponding to the revoked portion is dismissed.

The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: (a) the head of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be amended to “the co-defendant of the court of first instance,” and (b) the head of the Seoul Regional Aviation Administration shall be deleted from 16 pages 11 to 18 (the part shall not be subject to the judgment of this court because the defendant who lost the court of first instance is not dissatisfied with) and (c) the remaining part of the land in the same page 19, and “the following,” and (d) the part concerning the plaintiff and the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasons for the judgment, except for supplementing or adding the judgment in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

The Defendant asserts as follows: First, even if the land category of this case was changed from farmland to miscellaneous land due to the lack of legitimate farmland conversion under the Farmland Act, which is a special law under the former Cadastral Act at the time of the change of land category on December 31, 2008, the remaining land was still farmland under the Farmland Act on May 19, 2016 and June 20, 2016 at the time of the disposition of this case. Second, even if the land category change as of December 31, 2008 is a legitimate land category change under the former Cadastral Act, the land category is merely a miscellaneous land, and it is merely a temporary change of land category and it is difficult to restore it to the original state. Therefore, the remaining land of this case is a de facto farmland under the proviso of Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Farmland Act. Therefore, each disposition of this case is legitimate.

On July 18, 200, as the implementation plan of the preceding project of this case, which is an airport development project, was approved on July 18, 200, and the permission for or consultation on the diversion of farmland under the Farmland Act was deemed effective on the same day. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the previous project of this case is changed to form and quality or converted to other use without following lawful procedures. Even if the first instance court co-defendants and co-defendants do not actually undergo the consultation procedure with the head of the competent administrative agency required by Article 96(3) of the former Aviation Act in relation to the diversion of farmland in the above implementation plan, it can be a unique illegal cause for the approval of the implementation plan, and such defect cannot be deemed objectively significant and clear, and thus the approval of the implementation plan cannot be deemed null and void. Furthermore, it is difficult to view that the previous project of this case is temporary or temporary to create a green belt as a natural green belt including the land of this case to prevent the safe operation of aircraft and the spread of aircraft noise damage. Accordingly, any other premise on this premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Corporation is unlawful, and the part of the claim against the defendant minister which is subject to the judgment of this court is reasonable. The judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant Corporation and the appeal by the Minister of Justice are dismissed as all of them are without merit.

Judges Poscop (Presiding Judge) Poscop