1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation, including the part arising from the defendant's participation, are all assessed against the plaintiff.

1. E, which was the owner of B, 812 square meters prior to B (17 square meters prior to C on August 22, 2014, and 90 square meters prior to D on the instant land; hereinafter “instant land”) and was the owner of the said land, paid KRW 26.65 million as the farmland diversion charges around 201, upon obtaining a building permit and a farmland diversion permit, for the construction of a new apartment house on the said land.

After the auction procedure for the instant land was in progress, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land on April 4, 2014, and succeeded to the building permit of E on August 7, 2014, and completed the report on the change of the name of the owner.

On June 9, 2015, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff the farmland diversion charge of KRW 40,66 million, and the Plaintiff paid it on the same day.

On the other hand, on January 6, 2016, the defendant decided to refund to E the farmland preservation charges of KRW 2,665,00 paid by E.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-7 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) following the auction procedure to purchase the instant land, the Plaintiff succeeded to the permission to divert farmland E and the incidental farmland preservation charges for the said land. Nevertheless, the Defendant received double payment of farmland preservation charges to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return farmland preservation charges paid as unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff. 2) The instant land is not farmland since it has already been altered in form and quality, and it is not farmland at present. Therefore, the Defendant’s imposition of farmland preservation charges on

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The imposition of farmland preservation charges is an administrative disposition that has already been determined with the lapse of the period of litigation, and thus, it cannot be deemed unjust enrichment that the Defendant received based on the disposition of imposition of farmland preservation charges. (2) Article 38(5) of the Farmland Act provides that where the business plan of the person who has paid farmland preservation charges is modified or revoked, the farmland preservation charges shall be refunded.