1. On September 27, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of revocation of permission on farmland diversion filed against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. C, which is the former owner of the 2,290 square meters of Gyeonggi-gun B (hereinafter “instant land”), concluded a mortgage contract with D Association on December 29, 2008 for the purpose of securing the repayment of loans to D Association. On December 30, 2008, as to the instant land, on December 30, 2008, registered the establishment of a mortgage of KRW 273,000,000 with respect to the maximum debt amount.

B. On April 17, 2012, C obtained permission to divert farmland for the purpose of constructing housing and neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) (hereinafter “instant permission to divert farmland”). On June 12, 2012, C filed a report on the commencement of construction of five housing site construction works and buildings on the said ground (hereinafter “instant building”).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) C.

After that, as C was unable to repay the above loan debt, D Union applied for a voluntary auction of real estate (referred to as “instant auction procedure”) and the Plaintiff acquired ownership on September 1, 2016 by winning the instant land at the above auction procedure.

On July 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for revocation of permission to divert farmland of the instant land on the ground of “Revocation of permission to divert farmland by auction acquisition.”

(A) On July 18, 2017, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to supplement a specific treatment plan and submit it to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff respondeded to the following: “When the permission to divert farmland of this case is revoked, the Plaintiff is a plan to complete the construction work of the building in progress by newly granting permission to engage in development activities and filing an application for permission to divert farmland.”

E. On September 27, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting an application for revocation of permission for diversion of farmland (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “as a result of a hearing with respect to C, it is deemed unreasonable to revoke the permission on the ground under Article 39(1) of the Farmland Act, and it is impossible to revoke the permission before the restoration to the original state.”