The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 26, 2013, B filed an application with the Defendant for approval of a business start-up business plan under the former Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act (amended by Act No. 13158, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter the same) stating that he/she would engage in the business of manufacturing signboards and advertisements with C and six parcels outside C at the time of strike, and obtained approval from the Defendant on December 13, 2013.

B. A Co., Ltd. submitted to the Defendant a written request for consultation on the diversion (revision) of farmland (hereinafter “instant land”) to convert the instant land into land for a factory in Pakistan-si (hereinafter “instant land”), which is farmland. Upon notification of the result of consultation that conditional consent was obtained from the Defendant on July 30, 2014, the Defendant completed development activities, such as changing the land category of the instant land into land for a factory, and newly constructed a factory on the instant land on the ground.

(hereinafter “instant factory”). C.

On August 5, 2014, the Defendant notified a stock company B of the decision to exempt farmland preservation charges for farmland diversion in the instant land pursuant to Article 38(5) of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 13022, Jan. 20, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 52 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25917, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply), and subparagraph 3(j) of attached Table 2.

On January 18, 2019, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land and factory from B Co., Ltd., and on the same day, the Plaintiff leased to B Co., Ltd the remainder except one of the four factories of this case (D1st, 2nd).

E. On October 10, 2019, the Defendant imposed a farmland preservation charge of KRW 117,700,000 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the purpose of farmland conversion (use) was changed from “factory establishment” to “factory” to “factory.”

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5; and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful