The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court determined that the disposition imposing farmland preservation charges (hereinafter “instant disposition”) is the Supreme Court Decision in 2010Du16714 Decided May 24, 2012 (hereinafter “Supreme Court Decision in 2012”).

The Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment was dismissed on the ground that there was room for dispute over the interpretation of the legal doctrine that no farmland preservation charges shall be imposed on the business and property of partnership, etc. at the time of the disposition, since it was clearly revealed that there was no error in such legal doctrine.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. (1) As to the seriousness of defects, the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10522, Mar. 31, 2011; hereinafter “Agricultural Cooperatives Act”) is deemed as follows: (a) before the enforcement of March 2, 2012;

The purpose of Article 1) was to improve the economic, social, and cultural status of farmers based on the autonomous cooperative organization of farmers, enhance the quality of life of farmers by strengthening the competitiveness of agriculture, and contribute to the balanced development of the national economy (see Article 1). Article 2 of the Act refers to a local cooperative (referring to a local agricultural cooperative and a local livestock cooperative established under the Act above).

The term “agricultural products cooperatives” and “agricultural products cooperatives” mean the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation established under the above Act, and Article 8 of the same Act provides that the business and property of unions and the National Federation shall be exempted from surcharges other than taxes of the State and local governments. Meanwhile, the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 11171, Jan. 17, 2012; hereinafter “ Farmland Act”).

Article 38 (1) stipulates that a person, etc. who has obtained permission to divert farmland shall be subject to the imposition of farmland preservation charges, and Article 38 (5) stipulates that a person subject to the reduction or exemption of farmland preservation charges shall be subject to subparagraph 3 of Article 35 (1) or other facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree.