In Seoul 27 Golf Club Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and two others (Attorney Park Jae-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 21, 2017

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Korea Rural Community Corporation shall be dismissed.

2. On June 20, 2016, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs revoked the imposition of farmland preservation charges on each parcel of land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 from among imposition of farmland preservation charges imposed on the Plaintiff.

3. The portion exceeding KRW 5,874,052,020 out of the payment of farmland preservation charges of KRW 16,738,682,670, which was added by the Commissioner of the Seoul Regional Aviation Administration to the Plaintiff on May 19, 2016 under the conditions of approval of an implementation plan for an airport development project implemented by the Plaintiff on May 22, 2016 shall be revoked.

4. Of the litigation costs, the costs incurred between the Plaintiff, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the Commissioner of the Seoul Regional Aviation Administration and the Commissioner of the Seoul Regional Aviation Administration shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On June 20, 2016, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Minister”) and the Korea Rural Community Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Corporation”) shall revoke the disposition of imposition of farmland preservation charges on each of the land listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) among the disposition of imposition of farmland preservation charges imposed on the Plaintiff on June 20, 2016. The part that exceeds KRW 5,874,052,020,020, as described in the attached Table 2 attached hereto, added by the head of the Seoul Regional Aviation Administration (hereinafter referred to as the “head of the Defendant”) to the Plaintiff on May 19, 2016 under the conditions that approved the approval of the implementation plan for the airport development project that was granted by the Plaintiff on May 22, 2016.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Status of the parties

The Plaintiff is implementing the project to create public golf course in the Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant project”) in the area of the development project at the Hancheon-dong, 300-1 Won-dong, 76-1, Gocheon-dong, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul.

B. Ground for the land category change

1) The rearrangement project for the Kimpo Airport Facility Determination Zone was a project that started in 1989 for the removal of collective complaints against aircraft noise damage and the safe operation of aircraft at the end of 2000. On April 22, 1999, the head of the defendant headquarters, as part of the rearrangement project for the Kimpo Airport Facility Determination Zone by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, moved residents in the above project area and removed houses, and then reported the implementation of the project to the Korea Airport Corporation as a buffer green belt to prevent the safe operation of aircraft and the spread of aircraft noise damage (hereinafter “the preceding project”).

2) On July 5, 200, the head of the Defendant permitted the implementation of the instant preceding business to the Korea Airport Corporation. On July 18, 2000, the Seoul Regional Aviation Service published an implementation plan for the instant preceding business with the content of the business as “Seoul Gangseo-gu Dong, Airport Dong, Oedong, Oedong, Oedong, and Mayangdong, Incheon Gyeyang-dong, Dongyang-dong, and Dongyang-dong, and Dongdong-dong, Dongdong-dong” as the business area, and the Seoul Regional Aviation Service published an implementation plan for the instant preceding business with the content of “14,958 square greenbelts and 1,316,000 square meters of natural green belt and 1,316,000 square meters of residential green belt, and 1,000 square meters of house demolition and 203-21, 2004, the Seoul Regional Aviation Service published an alteration of the implementation plan for the instant preceding business under the Seoul Regional Aviation Service’s announcement No. 2084, 260-26, Mar. 26, 20008.

3) On the other hand, on July 1, 2005, the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government requested the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office for a farmland diversion consultation for the purpose of "the installation of long-distance air radio antenna" on a total of 26 lots of land containing 194-6 land (attached Table 1 No. 65 per annum) and 221-2 land (attached Table 1 No. 74 per annum) among the preceding project sites of this case. The head of Gangseo-gu consented to the said farmland diversion consultation on July 12, 2005 with a specific condition attached thereto.

4) On February 20, 2008, the Korea Airports Corporation (the Korea Airports Corporation Act, enacted by Act No. 6607, Jan. 14, 2002, comprehensively succeeded to the property, rights, and obligations of the Korea Airports Corporation under the Korea Airports Corporation Act) completed the instant prior projects, including “the creation of a natural green belt 945,248 square meters, house removal 348 square meters, waste disposal 6,800 tons,” and applied for the completion inspection on the airport facilities from July 5, 2000 to February 19, 2008. The Defendant Administrator issued a certificate of completion inspection to the Korea Airports Corporation on March 4, 2008.

5) On December 11, 2008, the Korea Airports Corporation filed an application for land category change on a total of 572 lots including the instant land with the head of Gangseo-gu on December 11, 2008.

6) As a result of the field investigation on the land for which the above land category change was applied, the head of Gangseo-gu judged that the above land was used as recorded in the application as airport facilities (buffer green belt) in light of the present situation after the completion of the preceding project in this case on March 4, 2008, and that the change of land category to miscellaneous land upon completion of construction work such as change of form and quality of land is not contrary to the relevant laws and regulations, and accordingly, the head of Gangseo-gu requested the competent registry office to commission the change of land indication after completing the cadastral adjustment due to land change.

7) On December 26, 2008, the head of Gangseo-gu notified the Korea Airports Corporation of the fact that he/she processed an application for land alteration (land category alteration) on the above 572 square meters of land, such as a change of land to 13 square meters in Gangseo-gu 560-4 Miscellaneous land 2,133 square meters, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu. The land category on the register was all changed to miscellaneous land at that time (hereinafter “instant land category change”).

C. Progress of the instant project

1) On November 24, 2004, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation held a meeting of the related agencies on the “plan for the management and utilization of the facilities decision zone of the Gimpo Airport” located in the loan. As a result of the said meeting, the Korea Airports Corporation decided to attract golf courses into sports facilities in the said facilities decision zone for the efficient management of the facilities decision zone of the Kimpo Airport.

2) On January 5, 2007, the head of the Aviation Safety Headquarters, delegated by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, announced the alteration of the Kimpo International Basic Airport Development Plan for the instant project of the following contents (BOT method), which read “the Korea Airports Corporation becomes a project undertaker and establishes a public golf course of 27 holes in size, and the Korea Airports Corporation provides a site for the instant project and a private business operator constructs facilities such as site creation, etc. The Korea Airports Corporation, at the same time as the completion of the construction of the facilities, acquired the ownership of the facilities and operated the private business operator by leasing and operating the golf course for 20 years from the date of the commencement of the operation (BOT method).

3) On July 4, 2006 and September 5, 2007, the Gyeonggi-do and Seoul City Urban Planning Committee, which was held by the Korea Airports Corporation upon application for a development restriction zone management plan for a public golf course development project, shall deliberate and decide on the size of a golf course as “27 meters, and 1,068,684 square meters, which correspond to the size above the size of the map subject to change of form and quality,” and on April 3, 2008, the Central Urban Planning Committee decided on April 3, 2008 that “the size of a change of form and quality shall be approved by the total area of 27 holes, but 57.7% of the entire site shall be considered as farmland (electric and field), and the size of a golf course shall be reduced to 18 holes,” and on April 24, 2008, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs approved the management plan for a development restriction zone in the Seoul Metropolitan Area as a condition to

4) After September 17, 2009, the Korea Airports Corporation filed an application with the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on September 17, 2009 to revise a development restriction zone management plan to extend the size of a golf course to 27 holes. On March 3, 2011, the Central Urban Planning Committee deliberated on and decided to extend the size of a golf course to 9 holes on the ground that “the development restriction zone ratio from 57.74% to 14.8% as a result of the instant land category change is reduced to 57.74% as a result of the instant land category change, and the area of an airport was not cultivated as a miscellaneous land under the relevant law and its cultivation was suspended from 2008, and the cause of reduction

5) On March 31, 2011, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs approved a management plan for development restriction zones in 201 for some matters, the deliberation of which has been completed under the conditions of approval, including the implementation of the results of deliberation by the Central Urban Planning Committee, and the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City publicly announced the above amendment on April 7, 201.

6) Around December 20, 2013, the Korea Airports Corporation publicly announced the solicitation of the instant business entity. On December 26, 2013, the Korea Airports Corporation held a project explanation meeting to distribute a prospectus stating the method of implementing the instant project, the period of business, the total project cost, etc.

7) On July 31, 2014, the Kimpo golf club agreed with the Korea Airports Corporation (Korea Airports Corporation) to submit a business plan to recruit business operators and to select them as business operators.

(1) The Corporation shall designate a concessionaire for the project at the same time as this Convention enters into. (2) The concessionaire shall be designated as the concessionaire for the airport development project under the Aviation Act after obtaining permission for the implementation of the airport development project from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport under Article 94 of the Aviation Act and Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

8) On August 28, 2014, in accordance with Article 21 of the aforementioned concession agreement, the consortium established the Plaintiff as the main agent to implement the instant project through the investment by each member, and on September 8, 2015, the head of the Defendant permitted the Plaintiff to implement the instant project on the condition that “the Plaintiff shall implement the instant project after obtaining approval of the implementation plan for the airport development project.”

(d) Details of the imposition of farmland preservation charges;

1) On October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff requested on October 2, 2015, the head of Gangseo-gu Office to consult on the farmland diversion of the instant project site, the land category of which is the former and dry field, etc., and which requires the procedure for changing the form and quality. The head of Gangseo-gu requested on October 13, 2015, the head of Gangseo-gu Office again requested the head of Gangseo-gu Office to consult with the head of Gangseo-gu who has been delegated the relevant work by the Minister on the farmland diversion. The head of Gangseo-gu stated on October 13, 2015, that the Plaintiff was a farmland used for agricultural management by leasing the land to the neighboring farmers of the Korea Airports Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Airports Corporation”) under Article 34 of the Farmland Act prior to the change of land category without permission for farmland diversion under Article 34 of the same Act, and the farmland has been used as farmland to be used on the present date, and thus, shall be included in the period required for consultation.”

2) On December 24, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the head of the Defendant to the effect that “the Korea Airports Corporation has caused disputes with the Korea Airports Corporation and failed to supplement the approval of the implementation plan,” and that “the land, the land category of which has been changed without consultation with the Korea Airports Corporation and Gangseo-gu Office, will be supplemented after consultation with the Korea Airports Corporation and Gangseo-gu Office,” and requested a review on the request for consultation on farmland diversion and the plan for raising farmland preservation charges (the payment agreement) on February 19, 2016.

3) On May 12, 2016, the Defendant Minister determined on May 12, 2016 to impose farmland preservation charges of KRW 16,738,682,670 on a farmland diversion area with the date on which the approval date of the instant project implementation plan was determined as the date of imposition (the part concerning the instant land is KRW 10,864,630,650, as indicated in the “farmland preservation charges” column in the attached Table 1).

4) On May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the head of the Defendant to approve the implementation plan for the instant project. On May 19, 2016, the head of the Defendant approved the implementation plan by attaching the following conditions: “The farmland preservation charges amounting to KRW 16,738,682,670 prior to the commencement report in accordance with the relevant regulations” as stated in the attached Table 2 attached hereto (hereinafter “instant approval conditions”).

5) On June 20, 2016, the Defendant Corporation notified the Plaintiff of the payment of farmland preservation charges (hereinafter “instant charges”) under Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act and Article 41 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act, stating that “the Defendant Corporation, the person having the right to decide on the imposition of farmland preservation charges,” the amount within the payment period, “16,738,682,670 won,” and “by July 20, 2016,” which read “the Defendant Corporation, the person having the right to decide on the imposition of farmland preservation charges,” and the payment of farmland preservation charges (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 19 (if there are additional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 2 through 6, each fact inquiry result of this court's Korea Airports Corporation, Gangseo-gu Office's fact inquiry result of each fact inquiry, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit against the defendant Corporation is legitimate

A. Main safety defense by Defendant Corporation

Since Defendant Corporation is not the subject of the instant charges, and thus, it is unlawful for Defendant Corporation’s claim against Defendant Corporation is against a third party, not a disposition agency of appeal litigation.

B. Determination

In principle, an administrative agency that conducts an administrative disposition, etc. which is the subject of a lawsuit, in its external name, shall be the defendant. On the other hand, in the case of delegation or entrustment of an administrative authority, the delegation authority becomes the defendant on the basis of the delegated authority, while in the case of an agency or internal delegation of administrative authority, the delegation authority shall make a disposition in the name of the original administrative agency with the authority to make the disposition, and the original administrative agency shall be qualified as the defendant.

According to Articles 38(1) and 51(3) of the Farmland Act, Article 48(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, and Article 41(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act provide that the Minister of Justice shall notify the payment obligor of the farmland preservation charges when he/she has ordered the Defendant Corporation to receive the farmland preservation charges on his/her behalf, and he/she is notified of the decision to impose the farmland preservation charges by the Defendant Minister. According to the above facts, the Defendant Corporation indicated the payment notice of the charges in this case as “the Minister of Justice to impose the farmland preservation charges.” Since the fact that the disposition in this case is in the position of the administrative agency externally taking the disposition in this case is the name of the Defendant Minister, it is merely an act of receiving the farmland preservation charges on behalf of the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant Corporation is illegal against a person who is not eligible to be the Defendant, and this defense is with merit.

3. Whether the disposition of this case and the conditions of approval are lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The land of this case is classified as miscellaneous land. The farmland of this case has not been cultivated since 2008, and has not been cultivated since 2008, and has not been cultivated for more than three years without falling under “electric field, paddy field, and orchard.” Therefore, farmland preservation charges cannot be imposed with respect to the land of this case. Thus, the part corresponding to the land of this case among the disposition and approval conditions of this case, which corresponds to the land of this case, is unlawful.

2) Even if it is possible to impose farmland preservation charges on the instant land as the instant land constitutes farmland, it was possible to impose farmland preservation charges on or around December 31, 2008 after the completion of the instant prior project and the change of land category on the instant land was completed, and five years have passed thereafter, the right to impose farmland preservation charges at the time of the instant disposition and the imposition of approval conditions expired by prescription pursuant to Article 96(1) of the National Finance Act.

3) Even if the permission to divert farmland or the consultation on the instant land was not granted during the process of the instant prior project, it was an occurrence in the course of performing the duties of the pertinent administrative agency, and thus, imposing the terms and conditions of the instant disposition and approval on the instant land is unlawful against the principle of trust protection and the principle of proportionality.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Korea Airports Corporation requested 94 other than the Nonparty, etc., of the cultivator of the instant land, etc. to “a person who wishes to lease at the end of 2006, since the farmland lease contract of the Korea Airports Corporation is terminated at the end of 2006, and thus, he/she shall submit an application for lease even in 2007.” However, the farmland lease contract explicitly notified that only October 31, 2007 can be made due to an airport development project, such as golf course project, and that the purpose of lease is “a multi-cultural cultivation”.

2) On January 24, 2008, the Korea Airports Corporation notified the Nonparty and 111, et al., to the effect that the farmland lease contract was terminated on October 31, 2007, and notified in 2008 that it is impossible to lease farmland due to an airport development project, such as a golf course project.

3) On April 21, 2009, the Korea Airports Corporation made an application for temporary soil and sand disposal permission (permission within a restricted development zone) to the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on April 21, 2009, with the aim of using earth and sand generated from the construction site for the private capital inducement project for the construction of a public golf course in the Kimpo Airport, for the purpose of using it as earth and sand for the construction site for the private capital inducement project, including part of the land in this case, and for this purpose, applied for a temporary soil and sand disposal permission (permission within a restricted development zone) to the head of Gangseo-gu Office. On July 20, 2009, the head of Gangseo-gu applied for the above application on the condition that “the area shall obtain the permission for the temporary use of farmland for other purposes under Article 36 of the Farmland Act, separate from the permission for the act within the restricted development zone under Article 36 of the same Act.”

4) In addition to an application for permission to engage in an act within a development restriction zone, the Korea Airports Corporation applied for permission to temporarily use farmland for the purpose of soil piling up for the construction of public golf courses at Kimpo Airport from July 24, 2009 to March 201. The head of Gangseo-gu: (a) on August 3, 2009, the term of using the said land was determined as “1,98,260,961 won”; (b) the term of using farmland to recover from August 3, 2009 to March 31, 201; (c) the term of using farmland was “1,98,30,000 won”; and (d) the term of using farmland to recover from May 31, 201 to May 31, 201; and (d) the term of using the said farmland was extended to 31,201 to 30,000 won on the same date; and (e) the term of using the farmland was finally extended to 314, 20.6.216.

5) On July 19, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the reservation to the effect that “The Plaintiff shall comply with the terms and conditions of approval of the implementation plan of the instant preceding project, and shall pay farmland preservation charges without delay within the specified period, but has different opinions with the Korea Airports Corporation and the relevant agencies, etc. against the final payer of the farmland preservation charges. However, if the implementation of the instant project is suspended or delayed due to this cause, the Plaintiff Company would first pay the charges within the specified period, and then process them at the future by the court’s decision.”

6) On June 13, 2017, the Korea Airports Corporation responded to the inquiry reply that “the competent administrative agency did not request consultation on farmland diversion in the process of approving implementation plans, approving changes in the implementation plan, and changing land category of the airport development project on the preceding project from July 18, 200 to December 26, 2008.”

7) On February 23, 2017, the Korea Airports Corporation confirmed that “the former Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act provides that airport facilities should be miscellaneous in terms of land category under Article 5 (Article 58 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment, Management, etc. of Spatial Data). However, the preceding project of this case was undertaken to create airport facilities under the Aviation Act that was promoted to create a buffer area for aircraft noise damage around the Kimpo Airport, and thus, the Korea Airports Corporation filed an application for land category change with miscellaneous land according to the relevant Act after the construction of the buffer area was completed on March 4, 2008.” [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, the fact that there is no dispute, Gap 20, 21, 222, Eul 1 through 5, Eul 1 through 5, and Eul 1 through 3, each entry, the result of fact inquiry, the result of each fact inquiry, the purport of the entire arguments and the whole purport of the Korea Airports Corporation as a whole.

D. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition

1) Relevant laws and legal principles

Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Farmland Act provides for farmland as “the land actually used for the cultivation of crops or for the growth of perennial plants regardless of its legal category” in the main sentence of subparagraph (a) of Article 2.

In order to impose farmland preservation charges due to farmland diversion, the land must be farmland stipulated in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Farmland Act. Whether it is farmland stipulated in the above Article must be determined according to the actual state of the land regardless of the land category in the public record, and even if farmland has been changed, if the state of change is merely temporary, and if it can be easily restored to the original state, the land still falls under farmland in the farmland law, and the land category in the public record is a miscellaneous land, and it does not change even if the land is a miscellaneous land. In addition, even if farmland stipulated in the Farmland Act is actually used for other purposes, it shall be deemed that it is only a temporary change if it is not a situation where it is impossible to recover to the original state as farmland in light of its form and use status, etc., and if it is merely a temporary loss of the nature of farmland in light of its nature, such change is not a state of change (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du8235, May 31, 2007, etc.).

2) Whether the farmland falls under subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Farmland Act

④ The instant disposition is premised on the premise that the instant land falls under the “farmland” as of the date of approval of the instant project implementation plan, which is the base date for imposing the instant charges. According to the above recognition, since from 2008, the instant land is not used as farmland cultivated or perennial plants, it cannot be deemed as constituting “farmland” as provided in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Farmland Act, in principle, on the premise that part of the instant land constitutes farmland after approval of the implementation plan for the instant preceding project, the Korea Airports Corporation has filed an application for permission for temporary use of farmland for the following reasons: (i) the Gangseo-gu Korea Airports Corporation did not have any specific ground to deem that the instant land was used as farmland for a specific purpose, including the instant land category, for a total of 572 parcels of land from the Korea Airports Corporation on December 11, 2008 and conducted a field investigation, and thus, it is difficult to view that there was no possibility of changing the land category to be a temporary use of the instant land for the instant purpose, including the instant land category, as a piece of land for new use.

3) Whether the case constitutes farmland exceptionally

A) The portion of the land 194-6 and the same 221-2

In light of the above legal principles, if it can be deemed that the situation of the change of the land of this case is only temporary, it is an exceptional case, and therefore, it is a matter of whether it constitutes such exceptional case. First, according to the health department and the above recognition fact as to the part of the land of this case as to the 194-6 and 221-2, the head of the defendant office in this part of the land was legally changed from the farmland to the miscellaneous land through the change of land category through the procedure of farmland conversion consultation with the head of Gangseo-gu on July 1, 2005. Thus, it cannot be said that the land is temporarily converted without due process.

B) The remainder of the land

(1) Next, according to Articles 94(1) and (2), 95(1) and (3), and 96(1)9 and (3) of the former Aviation Act (amended by Act No. 6655, Feb. 4, 2002; hereinafter “former Aviation Act”), a person other than the Minister of Construction and Transportation who intends to implement an airport development project shall obtain the permission of the Minister of Construction and Transportation before commencing the project, and the said project operator shall obtain the approval of the implementation plan from the Minister of Construction and Transportation before commencing the project, and the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall consult with the head of the competent administrative agency as to whether the implementation plan conforms to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and if the Minister of Construction and Transportation approves the implementation plan, he/she shall be deemed to have obtained the permission or consultation with the head of the competent administrative agency as to the diversion of farmland for which he/she is deemed to have obtained the approval of the implementation plan. The remaining land for which he/she is deemed to have no effect on the initial diversion of farmland for 208 years or more.

(2) As to this, the Defendants asserted that Article 61(1)5 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) provides that “The authorization and permission clause prior to the application of the provision on authorization and permission for an implementation plan for airport development activities under public law, and Article 61(1)5 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that only the “matters consulted with the heads of different administrative agencies,” shall be deemed authorization and permission.” Thus, in order to take effect through the approval of an implementation plan for an airport development project under public law, the Defendants asserted that the consultation with the head of the relevant administrative agency should take effect on the grounds that Article 61(1)5 of the former Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 655, Feb. 4, 2002; Act No. 98(1)6, supra. 9, which is the general provisions of the former Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 98(1)6, Apr. 1, 2002) should be interpreted differently from the provisions of the National Land Planning Act.

(3) In addition, the Defendants asserted to the effect that since there was no actual development activity between 200 and 2008, the farmland diversion did not exist, it cannot be deemed that there was a farmland diversion, and that only the procedure for farmland diversion consultation was completed. Since the instant land was derived from farmland diversion only through the instant project, the instant charges were imposed on the point of time when the farmland was actually farmland diversion. However, it is obvious that the instant prior project constitutes “use of farmland for purposes other than agricultural production or farmland improvement, such as the cultivation of crops or perennial plants” under Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Farmland Act, which is a development act creating farmland as a buffer green belt, and that the instant prior project constitutes “use of farmland for purposes other than farmland diversion” under Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Farmland Act. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion on a different premise

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the instant land cannot be deemed to fall under “farmland” as provided by Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Farmland Act at the time of approval of the implementation plan for the instant project, and since the state of land changed from farmland to miscellaneous land cannot be deemed to be merely temporary, Defendant Minister cannot make the instant disposition on the instant part of land on the premise of “farmland diversion.” Therefore, the imposition of the instant land among the instant disposition is unlawful since it is not recognized as a ground for disposition (as long as the Plaintiff’s assertion is accepted, the remaining assertion shall not be further determined).

E. Determination as to the legitimacy of the approval terms of this case

On the other hand, the approval condition of this case imposes the obligation to pay farmland preservation charges on the premise that the disposition of this case exists lawfully and effectively, and thus, it constitutes "charges" as a disposition separate from the approval of implementation plan, which is the main administrative act. As seen earlier, inasmuch as the part imposing the land of this case should be revoked on the ground that the part imposing the land of this case is illegal, the part imposing the land of this case, which corresponds to the part imposing the land of this case, constitutes a disposition issued on the erroneous premise, and thus, it is unlawful as it constitutes the part imposing the land of this case, which corresponds to 10,864,630,630, which corresponds to the part imposing the land of this case, among the approval condition of this case, the part exceeding 5,874,052,020 won (=16,738,682,670 won), should be revoked

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant corporation is unlawful, and thus, the claim against the defendant Minister and the head of the defendant office is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Kim Yong-ran (Presiding Judge) Kim Yong-Namn et al.

1) The purport of the claim stated in the application for correction of the purport of the claim as of August 26, 2016 is stated as "farmland diversion charges". This is interpreted to the effect that the term of approval as stated in the attached Table 2 attached hereto, added by the Commissioner of the Regional Aviation Administration at the time when the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs grants approval of the implementation plan for the airport development project to the plaintiff, and the above conditions of approval are to pay "farmland preservation charges" as stated in the order of Paragraph 2 of the same Article imposed by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. However, the charges for farmland diversion are imposed concurrently in the past, but the farmland creation charges and farmland diversion charges were abolished on January 1, 202, and the farmland diversion charges were integrated into farmland creation charges under the Farmland Act as of January 1, 202, and thereafter, the farmland preservation charges were changed to farmland preservation charges as of July 21, 2005.

Note 2) In light of the contents of the written complaint and the contents of the request for correction of the purport of the claim, KRW 5,874,052,00 appears to be erroneous.