1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant Korea Rural Community Corporation and the appeal by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs are all filed.

1. The reasons for the judgment of this court, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, are as follows: (a) the head of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be amended to “the co-defendant of the court of first instance” and (b) the head of the Seoul Regional Aviation Administration shall be deleted from 16th to 18th (this part shall not be subject to the judgment of this court because the defendant who lost the court of first instance is not dissatisfied with) and (c) the same 20th “the remainder of the land” as “the next,” and (d) other than supplementing or adding the judgment as described in the reasons for the part against the plaintiff and the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

2. The supplement of judgments and the additional defendant Minister asserts as follows:

First, even if the land category of the instant case was changed from farmland to miscellaneous land due to the lack of legitimate farmland conversion under the Farmland Act, which is a special law under the former Cadastral Act at the time of land category change on December 31, 2008, the remaining land was still farmland under the Farmland Act on May 19, 2016 and June 20, 2016 at the time of the instant disposition.

Second, even if the land category change on December 31, 2008 was a legitimate land category change under the former intellectual property law, it is merely a miscellaneous land category and thus it is merely a temporary change of use and it is easy to restore it to the original state. Therefore, the remainder of the land in this case is a farmland in fact only under the proviso of Article 2, subparagraph 1

Therefore, each disposition of this case is lawful.

As the judgment of the court of first instance cited by this court, the remaining land of this case was approved on July 18, 200 by the implementation plan of the preceding project of this case, which is an airport development project, and the permission for or consultation on the diversion of farmland under the Farmland Act was deemed effective on the same day. Thus, it cannot be deemed that it was changed to form and quality or converted to other use without following lawful procedures, and even if the joint defendant of the court of first instance and the Seoul Regional Aviation