1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on May 17, 2012 with Suwon District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 10644, May 17, 2012, 201) upon receiving a successful bid in the procedure of voluntary auction for Seongbuk-gu Seoul Branch (hereinafter “instant land”) for the purpose of using the land of 909㎡ (hereinafter “instant land”) for agricultural management.

B. On May 1, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant farmland can be disposed of within six months (from June 1, 2014 to November 30, 2014) pursuant to Articles 11 and 12(2) of the Farmland Act on the ground that the Plaintiff did not use the instant farmland for its own agricultural management in violation of Article 10 of the Farmland Act, and that the Plaintiff did not enter into a sales consignment agreement with the Korea Rural Community Corporation or any other person prescribed by Presidential Decree, on the ground that he/she did not enter into the said consignment agreement, and provided that enforcement fines equivalent to 20/100 of the land value may be imposed every year if the said disposal order is not implemented.

C. However, until December 15, 2015, the Plaintiff did not dispose of the instant land in violation of Article 10 of the Farmland Act, even though the Defendant received an order to dispose of the said farmland, a prior notice of disposition to impose charges for compelling the performance, a certain notice of hearing, and a prior notice of imposition of charges for compelling the performance. On December 15, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to impose charges for compelling the performance of KRW 108,807,300 on the instant land pursuant to Article 62 of the Farmland Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the order to dispose of the farmland in question was not complied with even though the order to impose charges for compelling the performance was not complied with due to the violation of Article 10 of the Farmland Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The instant lawsuit is lawful ex officio.