1. The Defendant’s disposition of return of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland against the Plaintiffs on October 17, 2019 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs were the bidders with a maximum price of 1/8 square meters of 803 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in the case of the compulsory auction of real estate D with Seosan-gu Daejeon District Court, Seosan-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On October 17, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for the issuance of each qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland by indicating the acquisition classification as agricultural management for the purpose of acquisition as a farmer, in order to acquire the ownership of the 1/8 share of the instant land. The Plaintiffs A shall be the acquisitor classification and the acquisition purpose column, and Plaintiff B shall be the farmer classification as a farmer.

C. On October 17, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to return to the Plaintiffs an application for the issuance of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The land of this case needs to be restored to the farmland subject to issuance of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland at the time of acquisition, or the portion of the illegal building, the form and quality of which are altered or needs to be restored, and at present, there is no dispute over the issuance of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland at present (applicable to recognition), Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 1, 4, and 5 (including each serial number, if any),

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant asserted that the form and quality of the instant land were unlawfully changed on the premise that the instant land constitutes farmland.

The plaintiffs' application for the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland was rejected on the ground that there is an illegal building or it is necessary to restore this part.

Notwithstanding the fact that the defendant has the authority to remove illegal buildings and can issue the certificate of qualification upon receiving the restoration plan from the plaintiffs, the disposition of this case which rejected the plaintiffs' application for the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland merely for the above reasons is unlawful.

B. The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

(c) judgment 1.