1. The Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on June 28, 2017 against the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff became the highest bidder at the bidding date of the voluntary auction procedure implemented as Gwangju District Court’s net support D with respect to the land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”). On the same day, on the same day, filed an application with the Defendant for the issuance of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland necessary for the decision to grant the successful bid.

B. On June 28, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for the issuance of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

As a result of on-site verification, the land of this case for which the Plaintiff applied for the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland is constructed on part of the land, and thus, it is difficult to issue the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland under Article 9(3)4 of the Guidelines for the Examination of Issuance of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland (in the case of farmland applied for in violation of Farmland Act, which has changed its form and quality illegally, the farmland subject to application need to be restored to the farmland subject to the issuance of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland at the time of acquisition, or to be restored to the portion

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Jeonnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on December 26, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, 7, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. If the issuance of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland is refused due to the difficulty of expecting the original owner’s restoration in the event that the ownership of farmland whose form and quality were illegally changed is transferred through the auction procedure is smaller than the area where the Plaintiff’s alleged housing occupies the instant land, it is to issue the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland to a person who wants to acquire farmland than the original owner’s restoration, and to enable the original owner to acquire ownership and restore