1. On October 19, 2017, the Defendant disposes of the Plaintiff’s qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland with respect to the size of 119 square meters prior to Pyeongtaek-si.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 16, 2017, the Plaintiff became the highest bidder of the 4/20 share of the real estate stated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the issuance of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland for the purpose of acquiring the “Welendend experience farming” to complete the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant land.

C. On October 19, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to return the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that “the instant land may not be issued with the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland for acquisition of farmland, or on the current state of change in its unlawful form and quality.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the land of this case is a long-term cement package and connected to the road and used by many and unspecified persons, and it does not constitute farmland.

The Defendant, upon receipt of an application for the issuance of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland from the Plaintiff, has the obligation to issue the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland in the following cases, or to issue the document certifying the non-use of the land as farmland if it does not fall under the case, but the instant disposition to return the Plaintiff’s application because the instant land constitutes farmland, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) Determination of whether this case’s land constitutes farmland is a “farmland” under Article 2 of the Farmland Act refers to “farmland”, regardless of its legal category, such as paddy field, paddy field, orchard, and other land for crops.