The case holding that the administrative agency may refuse to file an application for permission for relocation, in case where acquiring farmland with the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland under the former Farmland Act after purchasing a house located within a development-restricted zone under the urban planning from the beginning to the beginning in order to alter the form and quality of farmland as a site by iceing only the right to a farming plan, intention, or residence in a house on the farmland without an intention to reside in the farmland

If the acquisition of farmland with the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland for farmland stipulated in the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 6597 of Jan. 14, 2002) after purchasing a house located in a development-restricted zone under an urban planning from the beginning to the beginning, is to alter the form and quality of farmland to the site for the purpose of removing a house on the ground without any intention or intention to live in the farmland and without changing the ownership under the Urban Planning Act, the case holding that the acquisition certificate for acquisition of farmland cannot be held from the beginning because it falls under the category of "when it is proved that the farmland was owned with the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland under the provisions of Article 8 (1) 6 of the former Farmland Act by fraudulent or other unlawful means, and furthermore, it is an administrative agency that has the duty to dispose of the said farmland which is not used for farming, and thus, it may refuse to file an application for permission for construction (axi).

Article 10 (1) 6 of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 6597 of Jan. 14, 2002); Article 7 (1) 3 (g) (3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 244 of Jun. 28, 2000) (see Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Busan, Attorneys Jeong Jae-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Kim Sea Market

Busan High Court Decision 2001Nu3907 delivered on February 7, 2003

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the violation of the rules of evidence and the misapprehension of the legal principle on qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland

The purpose of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 6597, Jan. 14, 202) and farmland for the purpose of contributing to the enhancement of agricultural competitiveness and the balanced development of the national economy through the efficient use and management of farmland. Article 1 of the same Act and the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 6597, Jan. 14, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply) are to ensure the stable use of farmland within the development restriction zone under the provisions of Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and to ensure that they are valuable resources that affect the balanced development of agriculture and the national economy, so they must be carefully preserved, and their rights shall not be owned and used in a way that enhances agricultural productivity, and if farmland is not subject to speculation under the provisions of Article 9 of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 1065, Jun. 1, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply). It is to enable the issuance of farmland to be subject to restriction on the ownership of farmland under Article 97 of the former Urban Planning Act.

Based on the evidence adopted by the court below for the same purport, it is proper to determine that the disposition of this case, which rejected an application for permission for farmland diversion on the ground of the above farmland, is justified (However, since the court below's decision that rejected the application for permission for farmland diversion under the provisions of Article 20 (1) 4 of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 6247 of Jan. 28, 2000) because it is not proper to acknowledge that the plaintiff's acquisition of farmland was issued for 60 square meters (hereinafter "the farmland in this case") on the land surface (the "land in this case") on the ground that it constitutes a violation of the provisions of Article 10 (1) 6 of the former Farmland Act or the provisions of Article 10 (1) 4 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 6247 of Jan. 28, 200).

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the object of farmland diversion due to incomplete hearing

According to the records, the farmland of this case cannot be deemed to have lost its utility or function as farmland under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Farmland Act, and on the other hand, this case does not correspond to the object of permission for farmland conversion under Article 36 (1) of the former Farmland Act, but constitutes the object of report on farmland conversion under Article 37 (1) 1 and (2) of the former Farmland Act and Article 41 [Attachment Table 1] subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19891 of July 1, 200), but the deceased cannot own the farmland of this case from the beginning, and the report on farmland conversion cannot be accepted as it bears its duty to dispose of the farmland of this case. Thus, in the disposition of this case where the defendant rejected the application for permission for the construction of this case, it cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the defendant did not separately take the procedure of examining the report on farmland conversion under the procedure stipulated in the farmland Act, etc.

The court below's determination on the premise that this case is an object of permission to divert farmland is erroneous, but since the court below's determination that this case's disposition is not illegal, the above error does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, it cannot be said that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the object of the diversion of farmland due to insufficient deliberation, as alleged in the

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from this case and are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

3. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the deviation and abuse of discretionary power

According to the records, the deceased's right to interest in the land of this case is granted to the non-party 2's father's right to interest in the public works. The right to interest in the land of this case is granted to the farmer engaged in farming in the neighboring land. Unlike this case, the situation of this case is different from the situation of this case, the land of this case is the day around the 196 lot of Cheongju-ri and the 696 lot of land, including the farmland of this case, in accordance with the Presidential Ordinance on the Management of Park Young-si Natural Recreation and the Management Rules of the Natural Recreation City of Kimhae-si (Ordinance No. 195, May 15, 1995) and the construction was strictly limited to the construction in order to create a pleasant resting space by preventing natural damage and environmental pollution, and the right to interest in the land of this case is to protect the deceased's living zone against the principle of equity. In light of the above, it cannot be seen that the above disposition of this case is against the principle of equity.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to deviation and abuse of discretionary power, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)