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 grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the defendant asserted in this court while filing an appeal, are not significantly different from the contents of the defendant's assertion in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance that rejected the defendant's assertion even if

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court regarding this case is as follows, and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is revised as follows, and the defendant added the following judgment as to the argument added in the trial, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The amended part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which reads “6,23 square meters” of the 2nd 4th 7,233 square meters of “6,233 square meters,” and the 5th 7,070 square meters of “1,476 square meters of the total 7,070 square meters of the 4th 7,070 square meters of the 5th 7,070 square meters of the 7,070 square meters of the 5th 7,070 square meters of the 3rd 7,070 square meters of the 12th 2th 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance, adding each “farmland area” to “2,463 square meters of the 13th m2th m2 of the 13th m2nd 2nd 4th 5-6th m2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, each “farmland preservation charges” as “farmland preservation charges”.

A. In light of the purport of the Defendant’s assertion, the issue of whether to grant reduction or exemption of farmland preservation charges to the Plaintiff falls under the Defendant’s discretionary act. However, in the instant case where the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been engaged in agriculture on a regular basis, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have abused its discretionary authority on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have been granted reduction

B. The issue of whether a certain administrative act constitutes a binding act or a discretionary act, even though it is a discretionary act, cannot be uniformly defined as a discretionary act or a discretionary act, and it shall be individually determined in accordance with the form, structure, or language of the provision that forms the basis of the disposition in question.