A. On December 26, 2013, the Gyeongnam-do Governor publicly announced the designation of an urban development zone and the formulation of a development plan with respect to the “I Urban Development Project” (hereinafter “instant project”) that develops the H Day in Tong-si under the Urban Development Act.

(Article 9(1) of the Urban Development Act and Article 9(1) of the Gyeongnam-do Notice. (J)

On October 1, 2015, the Gyeongnam Do governor designated the Defendant as the implementer of the instant project (Article 11(1)1 of the Urban Development Act) and announced the amendment of the development plan and the approval of the implementation plan.

Article 17 of the Urban Development Act, K of the Gyeongnam-do, hereinafter referred to as "public notice in 2015").

Since then, the Gyeongnam Do Governor decided to replace the operator of the instant project from the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and revoked the designation of the implementer and the authorization of the implementation plan against the Defendant on June 23, 2016.

(D) Gyeongnam-do Notice L, hereinafter referred to as the "Revocation of the instant implementation plan").

On July 21, 2016, the Gyeongnam-do Governor designated the Plaintiff as the implementer of the instant project. On July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for authorization for the amendment of the development plan and implementation plan of the instant project following the change of the implementer to the Gyeongnam-do Governor, and obtained the authorization on October 20, 2016.

(M) Gyeongnam-do Public Notice. (e)

Meanwhile, when an implementation plan for an urban development project is authorized, permission for farmland conversion under Article 34 of the Farmland Act is deemed to be granted (Article 19(1)8 of the Urban Development Act). As such, permission for farmland conversion was deemed to have been granted with respect to 80,843 square meters of farmland to be incorporated into the instant project (hereinafter “instant land”) on October 20, 2016 as the authorization of the implementation plan for the instant project on October 20, and the Defendant, on May 8, 2017, is deemed to have been imposed with respect to farmland preservation charges of KRW 1,280,070,970 due to the diversion of the instant land pursuant to Article 38(1)4 of the Farmland Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

AB made it.

F. The Plaintiff asserted that the calculation of the farmland preservation charges in the instant disposition is illegal, and thus, to the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission around September 2017.