1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or modification of part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance like Paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

2. From the bottom of the fifth to the fifth part of the judgment of the first instance, the term “for the reasons” as “for the reasons” shall be read as “for the reasons in form.”

From the fifth side of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added from the fifth to the fifth:

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant disposition is lawful on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to acquire the instant land for agricultural management purposes, in view of the following: (a) the auction court conducted the auction procedure without having to recover the instant land from its original state despite sufficient time, such as the preparation of a restoration method; (b) the auction procedure was conducted without having to perform the partial auction despite the possibility of the partial auction by excluding the instant land; (c) the Plaintiff owns other farmland in violation of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Farmland Act; and (d) the Plaintiff falsely stated H-be whose name does not have to be removed in the agricultural management plan submitted

The Defendant’s aforementioned assertion completely differs from the grounds for disposition of this case and basic facts that “The Plaintiff does not constitute a person seeking to acquire farmland under Article 8(1) of the Farmland Act, since the cause for acquiring farmland has ceased to exist as a result of the Daejeon District Court’s official branch decision not to grant a permit for sale,” against the Plaintiff, who is the highest bidder of the land of this case, constitutes an additional modification of the grounds for disposition that are not allowed to assert the above reasons

Furthermore, there is any relation between the progress of the auction procedure and the restoration of the land.