1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a local agricultural cooperative established under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act (hereinafter “Agricultural Cooperatives Act”), and the Defendant is the subject to whom the farmland preservation charges accrue.

B. On August 5, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit with the intent to construct a neighborhood living facility (retail stores, offices, and warehouse facilities (hereinafter “instant facilities”) on the land of 4557 square meters of Seosan-dong, Seosan-dong and 57 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant facilities”). On August 18, 2010, the Plaintiff was deemed to have obtained a building permit from the Seosan-si market and deemed to have been granted a farmland diversion permission pursuant to Article 11(5)7 of the Building Act.

C. On August 18, 2010, the Seosan City issued a disposition imposing KRW 84,615,570 of the farmland preservation charges on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 38(1) and (6) of the Farmland Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff paid the farmland preservation charges on August 23, 2010.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiff asserts that Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act provides that a local agricultural cooperative shall be exempted from any charge other than taxes on its business and property, and that the above provision first applies to the Farmland Act, but the disposition of this case imposed on the plaintiff who is a local agricultural cooperative is null and void as the defect is significant and obvious, so the defendant is obligated to return the farmland preservation charges and interest or delay damages received from the plaintiff to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment. 2) As to this, there is room for dispute over the interpretation of Article 8 of the Farmland Act and the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, which are the basis of the above disposition, at the time of the disposition of this case, and whether the above Article 8 of the Farmland Act and the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, which are the basis of the above disposition, should be applied first, and thus, the defendant erred in its interpretation and thereby the administrative disposition was taken