1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 3, 2013, Aldico Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Aldico”) filed an application with the Defendant for permission to divert farmland of each of the above lands while filing a factory construction report with the Defendant for the purpose of newly constructing a factory on the 159 square meters in Gyeyang-si, Yangsan-si, C 159 square meters in size, C 159 square meters in size, D 466 square meters in size, E 324 square meters in size.

B. On the 12th of the same month following consultation, the Defendant exempted the farmland preservation charges for Aldiii on the ground that the permission to divert farmland was deemed to have been granted on the 12th of the same month by accepting a report on the construction of Aldiiiiiiii, and that the factory to be newly built falls under Article 4(2)1 of the former Act on Special Measures for Supporting Small and Micro Enterprises (wholly amended by Act No. 13086, Jan. 28, 2015; hereinafter the same).

C. The land B, C, and D was combined on January 14, 2014, and B became 694 square meters, and again, the land B was divided into 662 square meters in B, F 14 square meters in size, G 18 square meters in size on April 24, 2014.

On April 28, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased the above-mentioned B, F, G land (this part of G land was to be donated to access roads in Yangsan City; hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and a factory building on the ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) at KRW 710 million in the price.

E. On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a report with the Defendant on the change of the owner of the instant building from Aldidif to the Plaintiff, and filed an application for permission on the change of farmland from Aldifif to the Plaintiff for the change of the name of the person who obtained the permission on the diversion of farmland. The Defendant also exempted the Plaintiff from farmland preservation charges on the same ground as Aldifif, while accepting the Plaintiff’s report on the change on June 25, 2014.

F. However, on June 28, 2016, the Defendant did not use the instant building as a factory, and did not use it as a legitimate warehouse for another person.