Seoul Steel Industries Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Choi Young-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation (Attorney Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

September 17, 2003

Daegu District Court Decision 2001Gahap390 delivered on February 14, 2003

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 112,426,820 won with 5% interest per annum from May 7, 1996 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 25% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be recognized by comprehensively considering the results of the fact inquiry and all purport of the pleading of the first instance racing market in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1 through 3, 4, 5-1, 6, 7-1 through 3, 9-1, 2, 10-1 through 32, Eul evidence 1, 2-1 through 4, 3-1 through 5, 4-1 through 3, 5, 5, and 7, and each of the statements of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 4, 5-1 through 3, 5, and 7.

A. On August 5, 1991, the Plaintiff: (a) established a factory site in the attached list 1 of real estate (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) submitted a business plan to build a factory with a total floor area of 27,640 square meters and a factory equipped with auxiliary facilities, such as a road, parking lot, etc., on the ground; and (c) requested the head of Si/Gun to revise a plan for utilization of the national land for this purpose. [The Plaintiff’s construction site by the Plaintiff’s business plan is excessively related to the construction area of the factory site, and the small and medium enterprise establishment support act (amended by Act No. 4748, Mar. 24, 1994; hereinafter “Support Act for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment”) under Article 22(3) of the Act on the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment, etc. (the National Land Management Act was amended by Act No. 4748, Mar. 24, 1994).

B. On June 191, the head of the Si/Gun of the Si/Gun requested, along with his opinion that it is reasonable to establish a development plan to develop the land No. 1 as a factory site in order to contribute to regional development and increase the income of local residents, the head of the Si/Gun of the Si/Gun of the Si/Gun of the Si/Gun of the Si/Gun of the Si/Gun of the Si/Gun of the Si/Gun of the Si/Gun of the Si/Gun of the Si/Gun, to revise the plan for utilization of the national land to develop the land above as a development promotion area (industrial area) in the Gyeong area and forest conservation area, and also to submit a written opinion that considers it reasonable to consult on farmland diversion and to pay the substitute farmland creation cost at the time of consultation on farmland diversion, along with the letter of promise under the name of the head of the Gun of the Si/Gun

C. After consultation with the related departments on August 6, 191, the Gyeongbuk-do governor decided to revise the plan for utilization of the national land of the instant land that changed the specific use area of the instant land into the border area and the forest conservation area (industrial area) and paid KRW 85,686,480 with respect to the instant farmland No. 1 to the head of Si/Gun for the purpose of paying KRW 85,686,480. After performing the obligation to report the development activities under Article 27 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the Do governor imposed a condition that the Plaintiff will complete the project and treat the land in accordance with the procedure of the relevant statutes after completing the procedure for applying for approval of the establishment and operation plan of a small and medium enterprise under Article 21 of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act. On August 12, 191, the head of Si/Gun imposed a condition that

D. On September 11, 1991, the head of the Si/Gun paid 85,686,480 won to the farmland creation cost for the temporary storage of cash other than the revenue and expenditure of the racing-gun by the Plaintiff, and on September 18, 1991, the head of the Si/Gun paid the farmland creation cost for the farmland No. 1 of this case, which was imposed by the Gyeongbuk-do as the obligor for payment by himself, and paid it to the Rural Development Corporation, and the said farmland creation cost was reverted

E. On May 6, 192, the Plaintiff reported the development activities to the head of Si/Gun on May 6, 1992 pursuant to Article 27(3) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 44 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13654, May 30, 1992; hereinafter the same shall apply) according to the contents notified when he decided to modify the plan for the utilization of the national territory on the land No. 1 of this case, and the head of Si/Gun accepted it on

F. After that, on March 21, 1993, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval of a project plan for the construction of main steel pipeline manufacturing business (hereinafter the factory of this case) on the ground of the land indicated in the attached Table 2 attached to the real estate to be used as access roads under the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act (hereinafter “the land No. 2”). Accordingly, on June 21, 1993, on the exclusive use of the land located outside the agriculture promotion area among the land No. 2 of this case, on the land No. 9,479 square meters (hereinafter “the land No. 2 of this case”) after consultation with the Gyeongbuk-do Governor, on June 21, 1993, the Plaintiff approved the Plaintiff’s business plan under the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act (hereinafter “the business establishment plan”).

G. On August 21, 1993, the Plaintiff paid KRW 33,866,640 of farmland creation cost and KRW 3,643,500 of farmland diversion charges and KRW 37,510,140 of farmland creation cost to the Rural Development Corporation under the conditions imposed by the head of the Si/Gun of the relevant racing at the time of approving the establishment plan. The farmland creation cost was reverted to the farmland creation fund and farmland diversion charges were attributed to the rural special account.

H. After that, during the process of the establishment of a new factory building and the construction of machinery on the land of this case, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition on default on around 195. Accordingly, around March 196 by the Korea Assets Management Corporation, the son and Kun revoked the approval of the establishment plan for the Plaintiff on May 7, 1996, and approved the business plan under the Act on the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment, which was applied to the Plaintiff on the same day.

I. However, on December 17, 1998, the Gyeongbuk-do governor decided to revise the plan for utilization of the national territory by changing the specific use area of 2,993 square meters from among the land No. 1 in the instant case from quasi-urban areas to quasi-urban areas, and accordingly, the Plaintiff was refunded KRW 10,774,80 among the farmland creation cost of the instant farmland No. 1 in accordance with the delegation of the racing market around December 198.

(j) On November 1, 200, the Plaintiff submitted a written request for refund of farmland creation cost and exclusive use charges to the Mayor of the racing business start-up project of this case on November 1, 2000. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against cancellation of the refund refusal disposition of the Plaintiff on November 21, 2000, which was the aggregate of the farmland creation cost and farmland diversion charges paid for the instant farmland Nos. 112,451,820 won [(33,86,480 won + 33,866,640 won + 3,643,500 won + 10,74,800 won including the farmland creation cost and farmland diversion charges.] The Plaintiff submitted a written request for refund of farmland creation cost and farmland diversion charges, which are the sum of the farmland creation cost and farmland diversion charges paid for the instant farmland No. 1, 2,000. However, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the Gyeongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on March 8, 2001.

(k) The Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation established by Act No. 5759 on February 5, 199 and entered into force on January 1, 200, pursuant to Article 8 of the Addenda to the same Act, deemed that the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation was dissolved and merged with the defendant simultaneously with the establishment of the defendant based on the same Act.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The defendant argues to the effect that the lawsuit of this case seeking refund of farmland creation cost, etc. against the defendant is unlawful against a person who has no standing to be the defendant, since the person to whom the farmland creation cost, etc. belongs is not the defendant but the State.

Therefore, in a lawsuit for performance, the defendant's assertion is merely a ground to be judged as a claim, and it is not a matter to be determined as a party's standing to the principal safety, since the plaintiff's person asserted as a performance obligor has the standing to be the defendant in the lawsuit for performance. Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In accordance with Article 22 (1) 10 and 11 of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, when a business start-up plan is approved pursuant to Article 21 of the same Act, it shall be deemed that a plan for utilization of the national territory is modified or a plan for diversion of farmland is permitted pursuant to Article 21 of the same Act. Since there is no provision that permission for diversion of farmland is deemed granted due to a change of the plan for utilization of the national territory in the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, when a change of the plan for utilization of the national territory is made, the farmland creation cost for the farmland No. 1 of this case shall be imposed on the condition that the permission for diversion of farmland is deemed granted in the future after a business start-up plan is approved pursuant to the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act for the plaintiff. As long as the approval for establishment of a start-up plan for the farmland of this case is revoked, the permission for diversion of farmland as well as the farmland No. 2 of this case shall be deemed to have been revoked pursuant to Article 25 (2) 30 of the Farmland Management Fund.

B. Determination as to the occurrence of grounds for refund

(1) Relevant provisions

(A) Article 7 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory provides that "the plan for utilization of the national territory shall be drafted by the Minister of Construction and Transportation," Article 7 (6) provides that "When the Minister of Construction and Transportation formulates a plan for utilization of the national territory, he shall consult with the head of the relevant central administrative agency after hearing the opinions of the relevant Do governor, the head of Si/Gun/Gu, and the head of the relevant central administrative agency, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree." Article 8 (1) provides that "the plan for utilization of the national territory formulated under Article 7 shall be determined by the Minister of Construction and Transportation through the deliberation of the National Land Utilization Planning Council. The same shall apply to any modification to the determined plan for utilization of the national territory." Article 30-2 (1) of the Act and Article 58 (1) 2 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment

(B) In addition, Article 27 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory provides that "the provisions of Article 4 (1) 2, 5, 7 or 9 of the Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act shall not apply to development activities conducted pursuant to the provisions of Article 14-2 (1) 2, 5, or 9 following the specific use area determined and publicly notified pursuant to the provisions of Articles 7 and 8 shall be applicable." Article 27 (3) provides that "a person who intends to engage in development activities under the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall report it to the head of the competent Si/Gun under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree: Provided, That this shall not apply to matters permitted, authorized, approved, etc. or reported pursuant to the provisions of other Acts and subordinate statutes; Article 14-2 (1) provides that "the State or a local government shall establish and implement necessary measures for the development, maintenance and conservation of the relevant area for the efficient use and management of the specific use area according to a plan for the utilization of the national territory, and shall establish detailed measures for the promotion of the area as prescribed by Presidential Decree."

(c)In addition, Article 4(1) of the former Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 4572 of Aug. 5, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "a person intending to divert farmland shall obtain permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, except where it falls under any of the following subparagraphs." Article 6(5) and 7 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of Farmland provides that "where farmland is diverted within an industrial area under subparagraph 5 and 7 of Article 6 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of Farmland and an area for tourism and recreation, the competent Minister shall obtain permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to divert farmland for another purpose or to change its form and quality within an urban planning zone under subparagraph 1 of paragraph (1) of the same Article." Article 4 of the same Act provides that "the person intending to divert farmland shall obtain permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to divert the use of farmland for another purpose or to divert the use of farmland for another purpose after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries."

(D) In addition, Article 21 (1) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act provides that "a founder of a technology-intensive small and medium enterprise and a small and medium enterprise in a rural area as prescribed by the Presidential Decree may commence a business after preparing a business plan under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree and obtaining approval from the head of the Si/Gun/Gu." Article 22 (1) provides that "when a business proprietor obtains approval of a business plan under the provisions of Article 21, a business proprietor shall be deemed to have been subject to a disposition such as report, permission, cancellation, authorization, license, agreement or decision under the provisions of Article 8 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, modification of a plan for utilization of the national territory under Article 8 of the same Act, permission for land transaction contract under the provisions of Article 21-3 of the same Act and permission for diversion of farmland under the provisions of Article 21-7 of the same Act," and Article 22 (3) provides that "Where a business proprietor falls under the authority of the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, other administrative agency."

(2) Determination

(A) First of all, the issue of whether the permission to divert farmland of this case can be deemed to have been revoked due to the cancellation of the approval for establishment of a factory of this case. According to the above relevant provisions, the consultation with the relevant departments under Article 7 (6) of the Act on the Preservation of Farmland, which was conducted by changing the specific use area on the plan for the utilization of the national land of this case into the development promotion area, does not have any ground to regard such consultation as the consultation on the diversion of farmland of this case under Article 7 (6) of the Act on the Preservation of Farmland. Under the plan for utilization of the national land as the specific use area under Article 4 (1) 1 of the Farmland Preservation Act, the development promotion area of racing as stipulated in Article 4 (2) of the Act on the Preservation of Farmland does not require consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the consultation on the diversion of farmland of this case on the diversion of farmland under Article 4 (2) of the Act on the Preservation of Farmland of this case was made under the consultation on the diversion of Farmland of this case's No. 1 of this case.

Meanwhile, the provision of Article 27 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is a specific use area under the plan for utilization of the national territory, which had already been consulted with the Minister of Construction and Transportation and the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries at the time of the designation of the development area. Thus, a person who intends to divert farmland as a development act under the plan for development of the farmland established and implemented pursuant to Article 14-2 (1) 9 of the same Act shall not be deemed to have been satisfied by filing a report under Article 27 (3) of the Act on the Preservation and Management of Farmland without the permission or consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries for the diversion of farmland under the provision of Article 4 (1) and Article 5 of the same Act. In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff's obligation to report the diversion of farmland to the head of the farmland development area under the provision of Article 4 (4) of the Act on the Preservation and Utilization of Farmland to be established at the time of the implementation of the plan for the diversion of farmland under the provision of the farmland development act.

Ultimately, the farmland creation cost for the plaintiff's farmland does not follow the consultation on farmland conversion in the process of the decision to revise the plan to use the farmland in this case, which was made according to the application for permission to divert the farmland in this case, but was imposed pursuant to the provisions of Article 27 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and Article 4 (4) of the Farmland Preservation Act. Therefore, it is not determined whether the ground for imposition of the farmland creation cost paid immediately by the plaintiff according to the validity of the consultation on farmland conversion ceases to exist, but it is determined according to the validity of the development activities under Article 27 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory accompanying the farmland in this case. As seen in subparagraph 1-e and f of the above, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff reported the change of the land utilization plan in this case to the head of the Si/Gun on May 6, 1992, the change of the project plan was changed on June 21, 1993, and the plaintiff's report on the development activities become void.

Furthermore, it is clear that the permission to divert farmland to the second farmland of this case was deemed to have obtained the permission due to the approval of a business start-up plan for factory of this case pursuant to Article 22 (1) 11 of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, and that the permission to divert farmland of this case, which was deemed to have been deemed to have been revoked due to the revocation of the approval of a business start-up plan, shall be deemed to have been revoked. Thus, the revocation of the approval of a business start-up plan for the second farmland of this case, barring any special circumstance, shall be deemed to have caused a refund of farmland creation

(B) On the ground of the farmland Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, the defendant filed an application for the approval of the business plan for the construction of the factory of this case with the approval of the business plan under the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act from the head of Samsung-gun, resulting in the failure to repay the factory and its site immediately before the construction of the factory was completed almost, and since the land No. 1 and the factory facilities installed on the land of this case was sold to the non-party corporation, the ownership was transferred by the Korea Assets Management Corporation. Thus, although the approval of the business plan for the plaintiff is deemed to have been revoked and the permission for farmland conversion was deemed to have been revoked, the farmland No. 1 and 2 of this case claimed that the refund of the farmland creation

Article 23 (1) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act provides that "where it is deemed difficult to expect effect of approval of a business plan because a person who has obtained approval of a business plan runs a business remarkably different from the contents of the business plan or constructs a factory until two years have passed after the approval of the business plan, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu may cancel the approval of the business plan and the permission to reinstate the land, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and Article 15 (2) of the Farmland Conservation and Utilization Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the restoration of the land." Article 15 (1) of the Farmland Conservation Act provides that "Where farmland has been diverted to another person without permission under Article 4 (1), the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the head of a Gun, or the head of a Gun who has already been cancelled for the purpose of restoring the land to the original state by violating the provisions of Article 6 (1) of this Act and the provisions of Article 12 of the same Act concerning the restoration of the original state to the original state."

C. Determination as to the establishment of the claim for refund payment

(1) Relevant provisions

(A) Article 40 (1) of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994 and effective January 1, 1996; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "a person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall pay expenses incurred in creating farmland equivalent to the farmland to a person who operates and manages the Farmland Management Fund." Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "a person who operates and manages the Farmland Management Fund shall refund the farmland equivalent to the farmland development cost under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree if the person who has paid the farmland development cost cancels the permission under the provisions of Article 41 or reduces the area of farmland to be diverted due to the change of the project plan or other similar reasons." Article 9 (1) of the Addenda of the same Act provides that "a person who has paid expenses incurred in creating farmland under the provisions of Article 4 (4) of the previous Farmland Conservation and Utilization Act at the time of entry into force of this Act shall be deemed to have paid the farmland development cost under this Act."

(B) Article 56 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14835, Dec. 12, 1995; effective January 1, 1996) provides that "The Minister of Agriculture and Forestry shall, where a person liable for payment has overpaid or erroneously paid the amount paid to the farmland creation cost or there is any amount to be refunded under Article 40 (2) of the Act, determine the overpaid or erroneously paid amount or refunded amount as a refund for the farmland creation cost and notify the farmland creation cost payer and the rural Development Corporation thereof, respectively," and Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that "The farmland creation cost refund under paragraph (1) and additional refund under paragraph (2) shall be paid from the Farmland Management Fund under the Rural Development Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act."

(c)Article 53(1) of the Farmland Act provides that "the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry may delegate part of his/her authority under the provisions of this Act to a Mayor/Do Governor or to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree." Article 72(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act provides that "the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry shall delegate his/her authority under the provisions of Article 53(1) of the Act to the Mayor/Do Governor," and subparagraph 1 provides that "the authority for permission (including permission for alteration) for farmland diversion under the provisions of Article 36(1) and (2) of the Act and for consultation falling under any of the following items shall be 3,000 square meters or more of farmland outside the agriculture promotion area, 10,000 square meters of farmland diversion, 200 square meters of farmland diversion or more than 10,000 square meters of farmland diversion or 30,000 square meters of farmland diversion under the provisions of Article 40(1) of the Act:

(D) Also, Article 45-2(1) of the Act on the Special Measures for Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages (amended by Act No. 5108, Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry shall impose and collect exclusive charges on and from a person falling under any of the following subparagraphs in order to secure investment funds for the projects for improving agricultural and fishing villages," and Article 45-2(1)1 of the same Act provides that "the person liable to pay expenses incurred in creating farmland pursuant to Article 40(1) of the Farmland Act" and Article 45-2(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the method of imposing and collecting exclusive charges under paragraph (1) and returning overpaid or erroneously paid charges and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree," and Article 52(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the diversion charges received by the Corporation shall apply mutatis mutandis to the return of erroneously or erroneously paid charges."

(E) Meanwhile, Article 27 of the former Act on the Promotion of Agricultural and Fishing Villages and Farmland Management Fund (amended by Act No. 5153 of Aug. 8, 1996) provides that "the Government shall establish the Farmland Management Fund to raise and supply funds necessary for the scale purification of farming, the group of farmland, and the creation of farmland." Article 32 (1) provides that "the Fund shall be operated and managed by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry." Paragraph (2) provides that "the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry may entrust part of the affairs concerning the operation and management of the Fund to the Corporation as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 36 (1) of the former Act provides that "the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry shall entrust the Corporation with the following affairs pursuant to the provisions of Article 32 (2) of the Act, and Article 28 (1) of the Addenda to the Act on the Promotion of Farmland and Rural Infrastructure and the Act on the Management of Farmland and Farmland (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15135 of Aug. 8, 1996)" provides that "the Corporation shall comprehensively designate and succeed its obligations to the Korea Farmland Management Corporation and Farmland Act No. 19.

(2) Determination

(A) According to the above relevant provisions, the right to impose and collect farmland creation cost or the right to receive reporting is delegated to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry who operates and manages the Farmland Management Fund and this right is again entrusted to the Mayor/Do Governor and the head of a local government, such as a Do Governor, etc., and the farmland creation cost imposed and collected or reported according to such delegation and entrustment is finally paid to the Farmland Management Fund. According to Articles 45-2, 74 of the Act on the Special Measures for the Development of Farmland and Articles 52-2, 3, 4, 6, and 83 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the right to impose and collect farmland charges or the right to receive reporting are vested in the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry (the duties of receipt, etc. are delegated to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, on behalf of the Mayor/Do Governor, etc.) and the charges imposed and collected or paid pursuant to such delegation and etc. are provided to be finally paid to the Special Accounts for the Improvement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Structure 20. In addition, in light of the above-related provisions, the farmland creation Fund and 20.

(B) Furthermore, under relevant provisions such as the Farmland Act, etc. concerning the refund of farmland creation cost reverted to the National Treasury and the National Treasury, the defendant entrusted with the affairs concerning the collection and management of the farmland creation cost by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry under Article 36 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Rural Development Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act, shall be obligated to pay the farmland creation cost, farmland diversion charges, and additional dues to the payer of the farmland creation cost only when the decision to refund the farmland creation cost is made and the notification is made under Article 40 (2) of the Farmland Act and Article 56 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, which is delegated by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry with the authority to make a decision to refund the farmland creation cost, and the plaintiff shall not be deemed to have the obligation to pay the refund to the payer of the farmland creation cost (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da5101, Mar. 24, 1998). Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the farmland creation cost and its additional dues were not made to the defendant.

(C) The Plaintiff asserts that, even if a ground for refund of the farmland creation cost occurred, even if all of the statutes cited above are examined, there is no ground to deem that the authority to determine the farmland creation cost, etc. was delegated to the Mayor/Do Governor, etc., and thus, the obligation to refund arises to the Defendant after the refund decision was made. Even if there is a provision on the refund decision of the farmland creation cost in the Gyeongbuk-do Governor or racing market delegated by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, it is merely a provision on the procedures for refund, and thus, such

In light of the purport of the provision of law delegated to subordinate administrative agencies, it is reasonable to deem that the authority to impose and collect farmland creation cost and its notification was delegated simultaneously to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry in accordance with Article 40(1) and (2) of the Farmland Act, and Article 56(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides for the duty of notification thereof. Article 53(1) of the Farmland Act and Article 72(1) and Article 72(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the authority to impose and collect farmland diversion cost and the imposition of farmland creation cost are delegated to the Mayor/Do Governor or the head of a Si/Gun, etc., and there is no delegation provision for the permission to divert farmland and the duty of notification thereof to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. However, in light of the purport of the provision of law delegated to subordinate administrative agencies, the authority to impose and collect farmland creation cost and its notification is insufficient, regardless of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not immediately bear the duty of notification of the payment of farmland creation cost and its notification.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of List of Real Estate]

Judges Kim Su-chul(Presiding Judge)