Whether there is a material defect in the disposition of imposing farmland preservation charges on the business and property of agricultural cooperatives or the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (affirmative)

Articles 1, 2, and 8 of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (Amended by Act No. 10522, Mar. 31, 2011); Articles 38(1) and (5)3 of the former Farmland Act (Amended by Act No. 11171, Jan. 17, 2012); Article 52 [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24172, Nov. 12, 2012)

Supreme Court Decision 2010Du16714 Decided May 24, 2012 (Gong2012Ha, 1134), Supreme Court Decision 2013Da20908 Decided June 23, 2015 (Gong2015Ha, 1029)

[Defendant-Appellee] The Agricultural Cooperatives Act (Attorney Park Ho-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Korea

Korea Rural Community Corporation (Law Firm Doll, Attorneys Gyeong-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju High Court ( Jeju) Decision 2013Na463 decided October 2, 2013

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

The lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment on the ground that, since the imposition of farmland preservation charges (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was conducted prior to the Supreme Court Decision 2010Du16714 Decided May 24, 2012 (hereinafter “Supreme Court Decision in 2012”), there was room for dispute over the interpretation of the legal doctrine that no farmland preservation charges shall be imposed on the operations and property of a cooperative, etc. at the time of such disposition, and it cannot be said that the defect is evident.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. As to the seriousness of the defect

1) The former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10522, Mar. 31, 2011; Act No. 11335, Mar. 2, 2012; hereinafter “Agricultural Cooperatives Act”) provides that the purpose of improving the economic, social, and cultural status of farmers based on the independent cooperative organization of farmers is to improve the quality of life of farmers by strengthening the competitiveness of agriculture and contribute to the balanced development of the national economy (see Article 1). Article 2 of the same Act provides that local associations (referring to local agricultural cooperatives and local livestock industry cooperatives established under the above Act) and products cooperatives; Article 8 provides that the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation refers to the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation established under the above Act; and Article 8 provides that the business and property of cooperatives and the National Federation shall be exempted from charges, other than taxes of the State and local governments.

Meanwhile, Article 38(1) of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 11171, Jan. 17, 2012; hereinafter “ Farmland Act”) provides that a person who is granted permission to divert farmland shall be subject to the imposition of farmland preservation charges. Article 38(5) provides that “Where farmland is diverted to install facilities under any subparagraph of Article 35(1) or other facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree” in subparagraph 3 of the same Article, and Article 52 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24172, Nov. 12, 2012; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act”) provides that “The reduction or exemption and exemption of farmland preservation charges pursuant to Article 38(5) of the Act shall be as stated in attached Table 20 [Attachment 2], but the National Federation shall not provide for the reduction or exemption of farmland preservation charges under Article 35(1) and Article 21(2)3 of the Act for facilities owned by farmers.”

In full view of the legislative purport of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the provisions of Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the contents and form of the facilities prescribed by the reduction of farmland preservation charges in each subparagraph of Article 52 [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, and the provisions of the Farmland Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, such as imposing farmland preservation charges in relation to the property of a cooperative or the National Federation, restricting the scope thereof, or excluding the application of Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, etc., or the provisions of Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the facilities owned by a cooperative or the National Federation shall not be construed as being subject to imposition of farmland preservation charges as a matter of course on the ground that the facilities are not listed as facilities subject to reduction or exemption under each subparagraph of Article 52 [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act. Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, a special law on exemption from charges, shall be construed as not imposing farmland preservation charges on the affairs and property of a cooperative or the National Federation in relation to farmland preservation charges (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du16714, May 24, 201).

2) In this case, although the Plaintiff, a local agricultural cooperative, is exempted from the imposition of farmland preservation charges due to the application of Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the instant disposition imposing farmland preservation charges on the Plaintiff by applying farmland laws and regulations is serious as it erred in interpreting the relevant applicable laws and regulations, imposing charges on the Plaintiff, who is not subject to imposition of charges, and its defect is significant.

B. As to the apparentness of the defect

1) Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, which provides for the exemption from charges other than taxes of the State and local governments with respect to the operations and property of the National Federation, is clear, and its language and text is far more than that of the Supreme Court Decision in 2012, ① Article 21 of the former Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6642 of Jan. 26, 2002) and Article 9-6 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 13906 of Jun. 9, 193), it is reasonable to view that facilities, including agricultural cooperatives, are not subject to the imposition of charges for causing traffic congestion, unless there is a provision excluding the application of Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act from the imposition of charges for causing traffic congestion under Article 98 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act and Article 9-6 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Development Gains Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 9816 of Jun. 11, 1999, 19999). 2).

Therefore, Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, which provides for the exemption from taxes and other charges on agricultural cooperatives, does not provide for the explicit provision that the general imposition basis of charges may be imposed on agricultural cooperatives under other Acts and subordinate statutes, or the provision excluding the application of Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, it may be deemed that there was no room for dispute over the interpretation of the legal principle that the said other Acts and subordinate statutes has already been clearly stated before the instant disposition. Although it is obvious that the Defendant is not able to impose farmland preservation charges on the operations and property of cooperatives and the National Federation, and the disposition of this case was made without any reasonable ground without satisfying the requirements for disposition, and such defect is objectively clear.

2) Nevertheless, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant disposition was not clear. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the apparentness of defects, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)