농지보전부담금 부과처분 취소 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit (the alteration of matters permitted for temporary building-related facilities) with respect to a building site area of 2,760 square meters, building area of 199.55 square meters, Dong, plant-related facilities (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”), the total floor area of which is 195.5 square meters on the ground of 18,628 square meters on the B, Busan-gun, Busan-gun, Busan-gun, which is farmland, for a building permit (the alteration of matters permitted for temporary building-related facilities). On July 29, 2015, the Defendant imposed KRW 76,010,400 on
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b) The instant disposition
The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the Plaintiff, but was dismissed on October 20, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes an amusement park under the Urban Planning Act, and the Plaintiff obtained authorization for a horse riding riding course business on condition that the Plaintiff restores the land to its original state upon the Defendant’s order, and the instant building installed in the horse riding course cannot be deemed as a temporary building.
Therefore, since farmland is not converted, but is temporarily used for other purposes, it is not subject to the farmland preservation charge.
In addition, the defendant did not impose farmland preservation charges, changing his own view to impose farmland preservation charges, thereby leaving the trust of the plaintiff.
Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful because it deviatess from and abused discretion and violates the principle of trust protection.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.
C. (1) According to Article 38 of the Farmland Act as to whether the Plaintiff is liable to bear the farmland preservation charges, farmland preservation charges are imposed on a person who obtains permission to divert farmland or a person who intends to divert farmland after consultation legally construed as permission to divert farmland pursuant to other Acts. Article 2 Subparag. 7 of the Farmland Act provides that “the diversion of farmland” shall be construed as farmland cultivation or perennial plants.