The judgment below

Defendant with respect to the remaining land, excluding land Nos. 65 and 74 in the annexed list 1 of the first instance judgment.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. Unless otherwise specifically provided for in other Acts, an appeal litigation shall, in principle, be filed against an administrative agency externally taking an administrative disposition which is the subject of the lawsuit (main sentence of Article 13(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act): Provided, That if an agency indicates a representative relationship and takes an administrative disposition on behalf of the agency, the agency shall be the defendant.

(see Supreme Court Order 2005Da4, Feb. 23, 2006). (B)

Articles 38(1), 38(13), and 51(3) of the Farmland Act; Articles 47(1), 48(2), and 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24455, Mar. 23, 2013); Articles 40 and 41(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act; Articles 48(1), 48(2), and 49(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act; and Articles 40 and 41(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act provide that when the competent agency holding the right to impose farmland preservation charges decides to impose farmland preservation charges, it shall notify the Korea Rural Community Corporation entrusted with the receipt of farmland preservation charges by proxy along with relevant documents in a written decision on imposing farmland preservation charges; and the Korea Rural Community Corporation

In addition, in the form of “payment notice of farmland preservation charges” under [Attachment 32 and 34 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act, the nominal owner of the payment notice shall be indicated as “the president of the Korea Rural Community Corporation as an agent of the person having the authority to decide on the imposition

C. According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower judgment, the Defendant: (a) on May 12, 2016, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs imposed farmland preservation charges of KRW 16,738,682,670 on the farmland diversion area on the Plaintiff based on the approval date of the execution plan for a public golf course development project (hereinafter “instant project”); and (b) on the Plaintiff on June 20, 2016, the Defendant Korea Rural Community Corporation is the one having the authority to decide on the imposition of farmland preservation charges.