2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The reason why this Court is to be used for this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the use of "the soil, sand, gravel, etc." from 7th parallel 6 to 7th parallel 7th parallel 7th parallel 7 of the judgment of the first instance as "the cement, asphalt, asphalt, etc." and the use of "the cement, asphalt, etc." from 4th parallel 2 to 6th parallel 8th parallel 6th parallel 7th parallel 7 of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act,

[Supplementary Use]

1) Determination on the first argument

A) The interpretation of a law is to embody the concept and the meaning of the language and text used in consideration of the legislative purpose in accordance with the logical context of the entire legal system to which the pertinent provision belongs (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da46648, Oct. 19, 2016). Therefore, in a case where the relevant statute itself does not clearly stipulate the definition and the scope of the terms used in the said statute, the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the statute should be interpreted by comprehensively taking into account the overall structure, purpose, and purpose of the statute, the form and content of the said provision, and the relevant statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du3978, Jun. 24, 2010).

B) In other words, Article 6(2)4 of the Farmland Act and Article 7(1) of the Farmland Act provide for cases where farmland is acquired and owned by inheritance. However, in light of the provisions and legislative intent of the aforementioned Acts and subordinate statutes, the overall structure and language and contents, etc., the term “ownership” under Articles 6(2)4 and 7(1) of the Farmland Act means “it is possible to acquire or hold ownership in cases where the ownership is changed” and does not mean “it is possible to continue to hold or hold ownership after the change in ownership, etc.” under Articles 6(2)4 and 7(1) of the Farmland Act. Meanwhile, Articles 6(2)4 and 7(1) of the Farmland Act regulate the point of time of time of change in ownership, etc. and are interpreted to mean “the direction of the discipline” entirely different from Article 10(1) of the Farmland Act, which regulates the continuous ownership.

Therefore, even if a “acquisition” of farmland ownership due to inheritance pursuant to Article 6(2)4 and Article 7(1) of the Farmland Act, it cannot be deemed as a matter of course that the ownership of farmland may continue to exist, and in such a case, it cannot be deemed that a person subject to the application of Article 10(1) of the Farmland Act, which provides for the obligation to dispose of farmland, is excluded from the scope of application of the obligation to dispose of farmland. The Plaintiff’s first argument to the effect that a person who acquires farmland ownership due to inheritance can continue to hold farmland ownership even if he/she does not engage in agricultural management on a different premise is not acceptable.

Article 121 of the Constitution provides, “The State shall endeavor to achieve the principle of free movement with respect to farmland, and the tenant system of farmland is prohibited (Paragraph 1). The tenant system of farmland shall enhance agricultural productivity and the rational utilization of farmland or lease and entrusted management of farmland arising from inevitable circumstances shall be recognized under the conditions as prescribed by Act (Paragraph 2).” Meanwhile, Article 1 of the Farmland Act provides, “The purpose of this Act is to efficiently utilize and manage farmland, thereby contributing to strengthening the agricultural competitiveness, balanced development of the national economy and the preservation of national land based on the safety of farmers’ management and agricultural productivity, improvement of agricultural productivity, and the preservation of national land.” Meanwhile, Article 3 (Basic Principles on Farmland) provides, “The farmland is the foundation necessary for supplying food to citizens and preserving the national land, and is a limited valuable resource affecting the harmonious development of agriculture and the national economy, so that farmland should be managed in conformity with the basic principle of public welfare, and the farmland shall not be owned and used in accordance with the principle of restriction and obligation to exercise the right to farmland (Article 13(1)1) of the Farmland Act.

In comparison with the language and text of Article 6(2) of the Farmland Act and Article 10(1) of the Farmland Act, Article 6(2) of the Farmland Act is interpreted as the provision concerning whether ownership (acquisition or ownership) can be held when there is any change in ownership, etc. on the other hand, Article 10(1) of the Farmland Act is interpreted as the provision concerning “whether ownership can be held continuously after any such change has occurred.” This is clearly revealed compared with Article 6(2)2, 3, and 7 of the Farmland Act and Article 10(1)3, 4, and 5 of the Farmland Act corresponding thereto (Article 6(2)2 of the Farmland Act, unlike Article 6(2)3 and 7 of the Farmland Act, the phrase “acquisition of farmland” does not include “acquisition of farmland” under Article 10(1)4 and 5 of the Farmland Act. However, according to Article 10(1)3 and 7 of the Farmland Act, Article 6(2) of the Farmland Act is also a provision concerning “acquisition of farmland.”

[Comparison between Articles 6(2) and 10(1) of the Farmland Act]

Where a person who acquires and owns farmland, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, in order to use the farmland as a place for experiment, research, practical training, seed production, or seed production necessary to carry out his/her intended project, at a school under Article 6 (2) 2 of the Farmland Act and the Higher Education Act, at a public organization, agricultural research institute, agricultural producers' organization, or seed and seedling prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, or other agricultural machinery and materials, which are included in the main sentence of Article 6 (1) 2 of the Farmland Act, or at a time when the head of a Si/Gun/Gu has recognized that a person who acquired farmland pursuant to subparagraph 3 subparagraph 2 of Article 6 (2) ceases to use the farmland for the relevant intended project (including where a person who has acquired farmland pursuant to subparagraph 3 of Article 6 (2) fails to obtain permission to divert farmland or grow perennial plants by using the weekend or leisure activities; hereinafter the same shall apply) or where he/she has not deemed to use the farmland pursuant to Article 7 (3 subparagraph 4.

Article 6(2) of the Farmland Act provides that “The ownership of farmland may be owned in cases where the ownership, etc. is changed” and the acquisition or ownership of farmland shall be permitted as of the time of the change. Article 6(2)4 of the Farmland Act also provides that “In cases where farmland is acquired by inheritance and owned by inheritance, ownership of farmland may be owned even if it is not used for one’s own agricultural management.” The foregoing provision is also related to cases where farmland is owned by “acquisition” and it is evident that the said provision is based on “the time of change”.

Ultimately, Article 6(2)4 of the Farmland Act merely recognizes the exception based on the “time of change” so that an heir may acquire ownership of farmland even if it is not used for his/her own agricultural management, taking into account the unique characteristics of inheritance in which all rights and obligations of the inheritee are comprehensively succeeded to due to the death of the inheritee. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted that the provision of Article 6(2)4 of the Farmland Act naturally permits the “Continuation of ownership” of farmland regardless of whether it is used for agricultural management.

Meanwhile, the purpose of the farmland disposal obligation under Article 10 of the Farmland Act is to allow the owner of farmland to continue to use the farmland for agricultural management and to restrict the continuous ownership of farmland by a person who is not a farmer or an agricultural corporation. In light of the purport of the legislation of Article 10 of the Farmland Act and the fact that Article 10 of the Farmland Act targets all the farmland, it cannot be deemed that even the farmland acquired pursuant to Article 6 (2) 4 of the Farmland Act is excluded from the application of Article 10 of the Farmland Act.

Article 23(1) of the Farmland Act provides, “No farmland may be leased or leased free of charge except in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs.” One of the subparagraphs provides, “Where the farmland falling under the provisions of Article 6(2)4 is leased or leased free of charge (Article 6(2)4), or where a person who has acquired the farmland by inheritance and is not engaged in agricultural management leases or rents free of charge the farmland owned in excess of the maximum limit of ownership provided for in Article 7(1) to the Korea Rural Community Corporation or other persons prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 7(1)(Article 7(a)(Article 7(3)).”

According to the above provisions, where farmland ownership is acquired due to inheritance and the farmland does not exceed the maximum limit (10,00 square meters) ownership, it may be leased, etc. pursuant to Article 23(1)1 of the Farmland Act, and where the farmland exceeds the maximum limit of ownership, it may be entrusted, leased, etc. to the Korea Rural Community Corporation, etc. pursuant to Article 23(1)7(a) of the Farmland Act. The provisions of Article 23(1)1 and 7(1)7(a) of the Farmland Act are systematically connected with the provisions of Article 10(1)1 and 10(4) of the Farmland Act, Article 9(1)1 subparag. 5(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act allow an heir to use the farmland for agricultural management by means of lease, etc. of the relevant farmland, etc., and if the farmland is not used in agricultural management in the above manner, it will play a role as a ground provision that imposes an obligation to dispose of the farmland.

Ultimately, as of the time of change, Article 6(2)2, 3, and 7 of the Farmland Act, which regulates whether or not the “ownership” is continued after the time of change, is consistent with Article 10(1)3, 4, and 5 of the Farmland Act, which regulates whether or not the “ownership” is continued after the time of change. Article 6(2)4 of the Farmland Act, which regulates the “ownership” as of the time of change, corresponds to Article 10(1)1 of the Farmland Act, which regulates whether or not the “ownership” is continued after the time of change.

Article 7(1) of the Farmland Act provides, “A person who acquires farmland by inheritance and is not engaged in agricultural management may own only a total of 10,00 square meters of the inherited farmland.” Article 7(4) provides, “Where farmland is leased or lent free of charge pursuant to Article 23(1)7, notwithstanding paragraph (1), the person may continue to own the farmland during that period even if it exceeds the maximum limit of ownership.” However, in light of the structure, text, contents, etc. of Articles 6, 10, and 23 of the Farmland Act as seen earlier, Article 7(1) of the Farmland Act provides, “A person who acquires farmland by inheritance and is not engaged in agricultural management may own the farmland only within 10,00 square meters of the inherited farmland.” Meanwhile, Article 7(4) of the Farmland Act provides, “Where the ownership, etc. is changed, the person may continue to use the farmland in excess of the maximum limit of ownership” under Article 6(2) of the Farmland Act, while Article 7(1) of the Farmland Act provides, “a change in ownership beyond the maximum provision concerning ownership” under the Farmland Act.

Therefore, Article 7(1) and Article 7(4) of the Farmland Act cannot be interpreted as a provision to the effect that “A person may continue to own farmland up to the maximum limit of ownership even if he/she does not engage in agricultural management,” which is placed on the same plane as that of Article 7(1) and (4) thereof.

Articles 6, 7, 10 and 23 of the Farmland Act are interpreted as follows with respect to the case where a person who is not used for his own agricultural management acquires farmland due to inheritance. Such interpretation is consistent with the contents and purport of Article 121 of the Constitution and Articles 1 and 3 of the Farmland Act, and it is determined that the language and text of each of the above provisions are not inconsistent with those of the above provisions.

It is allowed to acquire farmland which does not exceed the maximum limit of ownership of the Corporation for the purpose of inheritance (Article 6(2)4 of the Farmland Act). In such a case, the farmland may be leased or used free of charge (Article 23(1)1 of the Farmland Act). In such a case, the continuous possession of farmland shall be allowed (Article 10(1)1 of the Farmland Act). Meanwhile, in a case where farmland is not used for its own agricultural management without any justifiable reason, such as the lease of farmland, if it is not used for its own agricultural management without any justifiable reason (Article 10(1)1 of the Farmland Act).

Where farmland exceeding the maximum limit of ownership of the farmland is inherited, the farmland amounting to the area exceeding the maximum limit of ownership shall not be owned and disposed of (Article 7(1) and Article 10(1)6 of the Farmland Act). In such a case, the entrusted lease, etc. to the Korea Rural Community Corporation, etc. may be conducted (Article 23(1)7(a) of the Farmland Act). In such a case, the continuous possession of the farmland may be permitted if there is such reason (Article 7(4) of the Farmland Act). Meanwhile, where the farmland is not used for his/her own agricultural management without any justifiable reason, such as the lease of the farmland, the owner of the farmland shall be liable to dispose of the farmland even for the portion not exceeding the maximum limit of ownership (Article 10(1)1 of the Farmland

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Soh-ho (Presiding Judge) Constitution of Kim Jong-ho

(1) According to Article 6(2)4 of the Farmland Act, the inheritance stipulated in the Farmland Act includes “a testamentary gift made to an inheritor.” Following: (a) the inheritance does not distinguish the inheritance from the testamentary gift made to an inheritor, but all of the inheritance is written only as “Succession.”

2) Article 6(2)2, 4, and 9 of the Farmland Act provides for the “acquisition” of ownership at the time of change, and Article 6(2)5 of the Farmland Act provides for the “holding” of ownership at the time of change. Ultimately, the term “holding” under the main sentence of Article 6(2) of the Farmland Act is interpreted as being used as a concept that covers “acquisition” and “holding.”

3) The purpose of this is to enable an owner to use farmland for agricultural management by means of lease, etc. after acquiring ownership of farmland by inheritance so that farmland can function for its original purpose.

4) Disposition of farmland, etc. not used for the management of the Special Metropolitan City Mayor Article 10 / (1) Where a farmland owner falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall dispose of the relevant farmland (in cases falling under subparagraph 6, referring to farmland equivalent to the area exceeding the maximum limit of farmland ownership) within one year from the date on which such cause occurs:

(5) “Justifiable reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as natural disasters, farmland improvement, diseases, etc.” in Article 10 (1) 1 and 4 of the Act means any of the following cases, respectively: