1. On February 3, 2015, the Defendant imposed farmland preservation charges of KRW 17,63,400 on the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 12, 2014, Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and Appointed B (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) purchased the 1/2 equity shares of Kimpo-si D, E, F, and G land in the procedures of voluntary auction at the Busan District Court’s Busan District Court branch. On December 1, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer is completed in 1/4 equity in relation to G land among the above land and 1/2 equity in each of the remaining land.

B. Before the plaintiffs purchase the above land, H, the owner of each of the above lands, obtained a building permit for the purpose of constructing a detached house on the above D land from the head of Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and J obtained a building permit for the purpose of constructing a detached house on the ground of the after-ri F land.

H and J paid farmland preservation charges (H 17,63,400 won, J 18,680,850 won) upon the legal fiction of farmland diversion permission in accordance with the above construction permission.

C. On January 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs reported the change of the name of each owner in the name of the owner of a detached house on the ground to H from H to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the name of the owner of a detached house on the F ground to J to B. On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiffs accepted the said report in accordance with Article 11 of the Enforcement Rule of the Building Act on January 20, 2015.

The Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the payment of farmland preservation charges stated in the purport of the claim on the ground that the Plaintiffs did not receive farmland preservation charges from H and J.

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 10 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs asserted that since they succeeded to the status of the title holder of a building permit and farmland conversion permit following the purchase of each of the instant lands in the auction procedure, the disposition of this case ordering the defendant to pay farmland preservation charges to the plaintiffs is unlawful.

(b).