1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. October 5, 2010, December 14, 2010, April 26, 201, and May 2012, 201, that the Defendant provided to the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the circumstances of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition is invalidated;

A. Although Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act and the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 10522, Mar. 31, 2011; hereinafter the above two Acts collectively referred to as the “Agricultural Cooperatives Act”) which were in force at the time of each of the instant dispositions asserted by the Plaintiff provide that the business and property of a cooperative shall be exempted from charges other than those of the State and local governments, the instant disposition against which the Defendant imposed farmland preservation charges against it is significant and obvious that the defects are concerned, and thus, is null and void.

B. It is as stated in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. 1) In order for an administrative disposition to be deemed null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient, and the defect is objectively obvious as it violates an important part of the law. In determining whether the defect is significant and apparent, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be examined from a teleological perspective, and a reasonable consideration should be given on the specificity of the specific case itself at the same time (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu4615, Jul. 11, 1995). In a case where an administrative disposition was taken by applying a provision of a law to certain legal relations or factual relations, where the legal doctrine is clearly stated that the application of the provision of the law is not possible, or where the meaning of the affirmative or passive requirement of the provision of the law is apparent, the administrative agency’s erroneous interpretation of the meaning thereof does not satisfy the positive requirement of the disposition or where the passive requirement is satisfied.