Ilsan Agricultural Cooperatives (Law Firm Seomin, Attorneys Oi-deop, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Goyang-si Market

December 15, 2009

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of farmland preservation charges of KRW 104,985,90 against the Plaintiff on June 9, 2009 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 17, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit with the purpose of constructing a utility tunnel and warehouse, which is a Class I neighborhood living facility, on the ground of the 2,229m2 on the Yandong-dong, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu (Land Number omitted), Yongsan-gu (hereinafter “instant land”). On June 3, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit from the head of Jung-dong, Ulsan-gu, and the permission for diversion of farmland was deemed to have been granted pursuant to Article 11(5)7 of the Building Act.

B. On June 9, 2009, the Defendant imposed farmland preservation charges of KRW 104,985,90 on the Plaintiff regarding the said farmland diversion permission (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed the instant lawsuit on September 4, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6's statements, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act (hereinafter “Agricultural Cooperatives Act”), “the State and local governments shall be exempted from charges other than taxes for the duties and property of cooperatives, etc. and the State and local governments shall first apply to the provisions of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act as long as the provisions of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act were enacted more recently than those of Article 38 of the Farmland Act, which is the basis of farmland preservation charges (the new principle of preference), and the provisions of the Farmland Act, which is a general corporation, are excluded as a special law on exemption from charges (the principle of preference in special law), and the provisions of the Farmland Act as a special law on exemption from charges are excluded (the principle of preference in special law). The imposition of farmland preservation charges to the plaintiffs are utility tunnels and warehouses for farmers, and the imposition of farmland preservation charges to the plaintiffs violates the basic purport of

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination on this safety defense

The defendant asserts that, in filing a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of farmland preservation charges, the head of the Korea Rural Community Corporation shall be the defendant when the head of the Korea Rural Community Corporation falls under an agency actually performing the duties of receiving farmland preservation charges, and that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful since it was filed against a person

In principle, an administrative litigation seeking revocation or confirmation of invalidation of an administrative disposition must be the defendant with the administrative agency that performed an administrative disposition, etc. under its external name (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu962, Mar. 14, 1995, etc.), and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to the entries in the evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the subject that imposed the farmland preservation charge in this case by designating the plaintiff as the person liable for payment is the defendant, and the head of the Korea Rural Community Corporation can recognize the fact that the plaintiff performed the affairs related to the receipt of the above charge. Thus, the lawsuit filed against the defendant is lawful,

2) Determination on the merits

A) Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act provides that “The duties and property of cooperatives, etc. and the National Federation shall be exempted from surcharges other than taxes of the State and local governments.” However, in light of the purpose of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act to enhance the quality of life of farmers and to contribute to the balanced development of the national economy through the improvement of economic, social, and cultural status of farmers based on the voluntary cooperative organization of farmers (Article 1) and the purpose of the said Act to contribute to the balanced development of the national economy (Article 1), the charges under the said provision mean money charges, which are money, etc. for which private persons are liable to pay in public law due to the occurrence of the whole or part of the expenses required for the relevant business by administrative entities such as the State and local governments, etc. In other words, the charges imposed on the development gains acquired by a development project operator or land owner due to a certain development act (Supreme Court Decision 2006Du13473, Apr. 24, 2008).

Therefore, since farmland preservation charges should be exempted pursuant to Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B) Meanwhile, under Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the Defendant exempted agricultural cooperatives from charges on “business and property,” and asserts that the instant land was owned by another person at the time when the Plaintiff obtained permission to divert farmland, and thus, it cannot be deemed “agricultural Cooperatives’s property,” and that farmland diversion does not constitute “agricultural Cooperatives’ business,” and thus, the instant farmland preservation charges are excluded from exemption.

However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that he acquired ownership of the land of this case on July 6, 2009 after obtaining permission to divert farmland from the head of Goyang-dong, Goyang-si. Thus, since the plaintiff as the plaintiff obtained permission to divert farmland on the premise that ownership of the land of this case was acquired at the time when permission to divert farmland was granted, it cannot be viewed that the above land does not constitute "property of a cooperative" merely because he did not acquire ownership at the time of permission to divert farmland. In addition, according to Article 13 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the purpose of local agricultural cooperatives is to enhance the agricultural productivity of cooperative members and promote the expansion and facilitation of distribution of agricultural products produced by cooperative members, and the plaintiff obtained permission to divert farmland of this case for the purpose of constructing a utility tunnel and agricultural warehouse, and in light of the purport of the above law, it is reasonable to view

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Kim Dong-ho (Presiding Judge)

(1) As a reference to reference, the Special Act on Designation and Management of Free Economic Zones provides that foreign investment may be facilitated, strengthened national competitiveness, and balanced regional development by improving the business environment for foreign-invested enterprises and living conditions for foreigners through the designation and management of free economic zones (Article 15). In such a case, the charges that are reduced or exempted are “development charges, farmland preservation charges, substitute grassland creation charges, substitute forest resources creation charges, cooperative charges, cooperative charges for causing traffic congestion, public waters occupation and use charges, environmental improvement charges, infrastructure charges, and metropolitan transport facility charges” imposed on the operator of a development project in accordance with the Restitution of Development Gains Act, the Farmland Act, the Grassland Act, the Mountainous Districts Management Act, the Mountainous Districts Management Act, the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act, the Natural Environment Conservation Act, the Public Waters Improvement Act, the Public Waters Improvement Expenses Liability Act, the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and the Special Act on the Management of Metropolitan Transport in Metropolitan Areas” (Article 15(2)). In light of the provisions of other Acts and subordinate statutes, it is reasonable to interpret the charges as monetary disposition similar to the charges.