1. The Defendant’s disposition to return the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland issued to the Plaintiff on September 20, 2019 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 19, 2018, the compulsory auction was applied for with respect to the land of 746m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) in Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun, and the decision to commence compulsory auction was rendered as Seo-Support D for the Daegu District Court.

B. On September 20, 2019, the Plaintiff was the highest bidder during the said compulsory auction procedure, and applied for the issuance of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland necessary for the decision to permit sale to the Defendant.

Based on Article 8 of the Farmland Act and Article 9 of the Guidelines for the Examination of the Certification of Farmland (Rules and Regulations of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) with respect to the qualification for acquisition of farmland for application for a thickness, the main time is to be known that the following is not issued:

[Dissenting Grounds] The land of this case requires restoration due to the existence of farmland or a grave (one grave) under the Farmland Act, for which the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland is to be issued, and it is not possible to issue the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland under the present state.

C. On September 20, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to return the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff as follows:

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 5, 6, Eul Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s disposition of this case immediately without requiring supplementation of the plan for restoration to its original state, which violates Article 22 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, which provides for the administrative agency’s duty to request supplementation, and is unlawful (section 1). (2) The Plaintiff is in the position of bidder prior to the issuance of the decision to permit sale during the compulsory auction procedure for the land of this case, and is not the owner of the land of this case, and is not the owner of the land

Therefore, the instant disposition on the ground that a grave is installed on the instant land is unlawful.

(Chapter 2). (b)

The attached details of the relevant statutes shall be as specified in the statutes.

(c) Determination 1 on the first proposal.