1. Each of the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the primary defendant is dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' claim against the conjunctive defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff A filed an application for permission to engage in activities (new construction) with the preliminary Defendant in accordance with Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Act on Special Measures for Development Restriction Zones”) with respect to the said land with each owner of the same usage as indicated in the attached Table 1 attached hereto, attached Table 1, as in the attached Table 1, with respect to the said land, which is located within the area of not less than 2,936 square meters prior to Ocheon-gu, Sincheon-si, and 525 square meters prior to D.

B. On November 27, 2015 and December 1, 2015, the conjunctive Defendant decided to impose farmland preservation charges on the Plaintiffs on the premise that the said land constitutes farmland on the farmland outside the agriculture promotion area and that permission for farmland conversion was deemed granted due to permission for activities outside the development promotion area. The primary Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the payment of farmland preservation charges in accordance with Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act and Article 41 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act, clearly stating that “Korea Rural Community Corporation in Busan Metropolitan City, which is the person entitled to decide to impose farmland preservation charges, is the agent of the Busan Metropolitan City Busan Metropolitan City, which is the person entitled to impose farmland preservation charges.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 7 (including the case of additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Attached Form 2 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Determination as to the defendants' main defense

A. The main safety defense of the Defendants is that the administrative agency that imposed the farmland preservation charges of this case on the Plaintiffs is the primary Defendant. Thus, the lawsuit against the primary Defendant is unlawful as it is against a person who has no standing to be the Defendant. 2) The primary Defendant’s notice of payment of the instant disposition is against the primary Defendant.