1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 30, 1999, the Plaintiff stated in the Plaintiff’s written application for the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland on October 30, 1999, stating that “the person causing acquisition” and “the ownership transfer for the purpose of acquisition” are “the person causing acquisition” and “the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland”. However, the Plaintiff’s application for the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland on October 30, 1999, respectively, includes the purpose of acquisition as to land B (hereinafter “B”) and 192 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

On November 2, 1999, the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland was issued by the head of the Dhosung City.

B. On December 14, 2001, the Plaintiff considered that the land in this case was a farmland subject to disposition due to the suspension without using it for agricultural management, as a result of the fact-finding survey on the use of farmland in 2001 to the Sungsung City Mayor on December 14, 2001.

C. On January 12, 2002, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the hearing procedure will proceed (from January 30, 2002 to January 31, 2002) in order to determine whether the instant land is subject to disposal. On March 26, 2002, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant land should be disposed of within one year from March 27, 2002 to March 26, 2003 pursuant to Article 10(2) and (1) of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 9721, May 27, 2009; hereinafter the same).

On April 3, 2003, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the farmland disposal order to dispose of the instant land within six months from April 1, 2003 to September 30, 2003 pursuant to Article 11(1) of the former Farmland Act. On January 12, 2004, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the plan to proceed with the hearing procedure on February 10, 2004, in advance, that enforcement fines should be imposed KRW 629,760 due to the violation of the obligation to dispose of the instant land.

E. After that, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant a enforcement fine of KRW 675,840 for the year 2004 due to a violation of the farmland disposal order against the instant land, and KRW 2,181,120 for the enforcement fine of 207 for the year 2007.

F. Meanwhile, the Defendant did not pay each enforcement fine imposed by the Plaintiff from 2008 to 2013 on the Plaintiff’s property.