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.

1. Basic facts

A. From 2008, the Plaintiff had obtained permission for use and benefit from the Defendant as to 9m2 in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, 297.1m2, an administrative property, and became a farmer.

B. On January 2, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased the land for which the Plaintiff obtained permission to use and make an application for disuse of public property on the ground that he/she would not use the farmland for which the Plaintiff acquired the permission to use and make an application for disuse of the farmland for the purpose of farming.

The plaintiff paid KRW 1,273,800 to the Korea Land Information Corporation as the cost of divisional surveying.

C. On January 26, 2018, the said rice field B 297.1 square meters was divided into C 23.0 square meters, D 155.2 square meters, and B 118.9 square meters, which the Plaintiff wishes to purchase (hereinafter “instant land”). D.

The Cheongju Mayor abolished the instant land as a general property on February 19, 2018, but the Plaintiff failed to purchase the instant land from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, evidence No. 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Costs of the partition survey on the instant land shall be borne by the Defendant. According to Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act, the disuse of public property is an ex officio act by the management agency, and there is no civil petitioner’s right to file an application. According to Article 30 of the same Act and Article 27(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in certain cases, the applicant for the sale and exchange of general property may bear part of the costs necessary for the appraisal and survey. The Plaintiff did not have filed an application for the purchase and sale or exchange. Therefore, the Defendant has to return the cost of the partition survey that the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff. (2) The application for disuse of public property that the Defendant

B. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff discontinued the land used for farming with the permission of use and benefit from the Defendant and conducted a divisional survey to purchase it.