logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.07.12 2018누66618
농지처분명령취소 청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court on this part is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) continued to cultivate crops in the farmland in this case after the notification of the suspension of the disposition in this case. However, since 2014 to the recent years, the farmland in this case was used continuously for agricultural management. Thus, the plaintiff's act of camping in the farmland in this case constitutes a case where the plaintiff was not used for agricultural management of the farmland in this case. However, the disposition in this case constitutes a case where the farmland in this case was closed for farmland improvement or farming preparation under Article 9 (1) 3 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act. Thus, the disposition in this case on different premise constitutes a justifiable reason for exempting from the obligation to dispose of farmland. Thus, the defendant's public official in charge was informed that the farmland in this case was continuously generated for three years from the farmland in this case since 2014, and even if the farmland in this case was visited in around 2017, he did not inform the plaintiff that the farmland in this case should continue to be restored to the farmland in this case and did not cause the farmland in this case.

B. As stated in the relevant statutes, the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

C. 1) Determination as to the existence of the reason for disposition (A) The key issue of this case is Article 11(1) of the Farmland Act (the head of Si/Gun/Gu may order an owner who did not dispose of farmland within the period of obligation for disposition under Article 10 to dispose of the farmland within six months.

arrow