1. The Defendant’s KRW 422,388,600 as well as 5% per annum from June 25, 2012 to December 27, 2012 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the number of branch offices), unless there is a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings:

[1] On August 1, 201, the Plaintiff applied for a building permit for the purpose of constructing sales facilities, business facilities, warehouse facilities, cultural and assembly facilities, storage and treatment facilities for dangerous substances (agricultural storage facilities, garments, etc.) on the ground on the land outside 376-1, 112 square meters and seven lots in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Seoul, for a building permit on October 1, 201, and the said permit was deemed to have been deemed to have been granted under Article 11 of the Building Act.

On October 10, 201, the head of Sigjin-gun imposed the farmland preservation charges of KRW 398,743,000 on the Plaintiff in relation to the permission to divert farmland (hereinafter “instant first disposition”) pursuant to Article 38(1) and (6) of the Farmland Act, and the Plaintiff paid the farmland preservation charges on October 13, 201.

[2] On February 16, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for a building permit for the construction of the Class II neighborhood living facilities (Agricultural Machinery Repair Center) on the ground of the 385-1,008 square meters square meters of Taedong-dong, Taejin-si, Jin-si, Seoul, for the purpose of constructing the second class neighborhood living facilities (agricultural Machinery Repair Center) on the ground of the 385-1,008 square meters, and obtained a building permit from the Jin-si market on March 21, 20

(1) On March 21, 2012, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor imposed farmland preservation charges of KRW 24,645,600 on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 38(1) and (6) of the Farmland Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) with respect to the said permission to divert farmland on March 21, 2012, and the Plaintiff paid the said farmland preservation charges on March 27, 2012.

2. An entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s alleged building is a facility for farmers and agriculture, not subject to farmland preservation charges. Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act (hereinafter “Agricultural Cooperatives Act”) provides that local agricultural cooperatives shall be exempted from charges other than taxes, and △△△△△. The Plaintiff’s alleged building is a facility for farmers and agriculture.