1. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Case history

A. B obtained a building permit from the Defendant on August 11, 2008 for the purpose of the first-class neighborhood living facilities (retail stores; hereinafter “instant land”), and paid KRW 47,00,00,00 to the Defendant for the purpose of the first-class neighborhood living facilities (retailing stores) on the ground of Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (3, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, 940 square meters, D 940 square meters, E, 807 square meters, E, 571 square meters, G 913 square meters, G 913 square meters, H 624 square meters, H 9 square meters, and hereinafter “instant land”).

B. After this, the Plaintiff filed a report on the change of the owner of the instant land from B to the Plaintiff. On November 3, 2008, the Defendant issued a certificate of change of construction participants to the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff.

On January 28, 2009, the Plaintiff completed each registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the shares of 126/624 square meters among H 624 square meters divided from the instant land, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and 940 square meters in D.

C. On March 21, 2014, the Defendant revoked the instant land construction permit pursuant to Article 11(7) of the Building Act on the ground that the construction was not commenced more than two years after the date on which the construction permit was granted to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, while the Plaintiff applied for the refund of farmland preservation charges paid by B to the Defendant at the time of the building permit, the Defendant did not provide evidence to prove that the Plaintiff succeeded to the rights and obligations of farmland preservation charges from B, and the Plaintiff did not agree to the refund of farmland preservation charges. Therefore, the Plaintiff notified that the refund of farmland preservation charges is impossible on the ground that the initial payer should be refunded

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5; Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations relating to the permission to divert the farmland of this case from B, and the Defendant also confirmed this and the certificate of completion of the report on the change of construction participants on November 3, 2008.