1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff was determined as the highest bidder of the instant land on June 7, 2017, which was the date of sale in the Daejeon District Court D Special Self-Governing City auction case for D real estate rental, with respect to the 97 square meters of land in Sejong Special Self-Governing City C (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On June 8, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for the issuance of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland to the Defendant for the purpose of acquiring the instant land as “cendend experience farming,” but the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application on the 13th of the same month for the following reasons.

Farmland subject to an application shall be restored to the farmland subject to issuance of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland at the time of acquisition, or by changing the form and quality illegally, and it may not be issued in the present state.

C. On June 29, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Sejong Special Self-Governing City Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on February 20, 2018.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 9, 10 evidence, and Eul evidence 1]

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the land of this case is classified as “the answer”, it is impossible to restore it to the original state as farmland because it is used as a factory site prior to several hundred and twenty years.

Therefore, even though the defendant should return the plaintiff's application by clarifying the reason that the land does not constitute farmland under the Farmland Act, and the defendant rejected the plaintiff's application for other reasons, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(Chapter 1). (b)

Even if the instant land falls under farmland, the Plaintiff does not have any title to arbitrarily remove the instant building or restore it to its original state, and the Defendant first issued a qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland to the Plaintiff, thereby acquiring the ownership of the instant land, and then requesting the Plaintiff to restore the land to its original state.

(Section 2). 4. Foreign Legal Consultant