Plaintiff (Law Firm Uniform, Attorney Quota-il, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Silsan-si, Silyang-si

May 7, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 48,000,000 for non-performance penalty against the Plaintiff on December 20, 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 17, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission for a land transaction contract with a plan for agricultural management, stating that the Plaintiff himself/herself would grow mushroom from around September 2010 to the Defendant on the 1,322m2m2 (hereinafter “instant land”). On the 23th of the same month, the Defendant granted permission (hereinafter “instant permission”).

B. On August 27, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land.

C. The Defendant ordered the Plaintiff, August 31, 201, to use the instant land by November 30, 201, on the grounds that the Plaintiff neglected the land without using it for the permitted purpose (hereinafter “instant implementation order”).

D. On December 2011, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff failed to perform the instant obligation as a result of the on-site investigation on the instant land, and issued the instant disposition imposing KRW 48,000,000 (land acquisition value 10/100) on the Plaintiff on December 20, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 (including a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) After acquiring the instant land, the Plaintiff started a mushroom cultivation, but failed to secure a proper market, and temporarily suspended mushroom cultivation due to lack of business funds. As such, the Plaintiff does not constitute a person who fails to perform his/her duty to use the instant land under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “Act”).

(2) The instant disposition that imposed a non-performance penalty on the ground that the Defendant issued the instant performance order and did not comply with the said performance order in a situation where two years have not elapsed since the Plaintiff acquired the instant land.

(b) Related statutes;

The same shall apply to the description of the penalty.

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the first argument

According to the overall purport of statement and pleading as to whether the Plaintiff used the instant land for the permitted purpose, the Nonparty reported to the Defendant that the Plaintiff did not use the instant land for the permitted purpose on January 201, 201, and the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff neglected to use the instant land for the permitted purpose as a result of the on-site investigation on the instant land around January 201, but the period of the on-site investigation (from May 1, 201 to July 31, 201), based on the fact that the period of the on-site investigation is the period of the off-site investigation (from May 1, 2011 to July 31, 201), the Defendant did not issue an order to use the instant land to the Plaintiff for the implementation period of the first time, and the Defendant did not neglect the content of the instant order to use the instant land for the purpose of the use of the instant land for the period of up to 201 to 10th of the first time after the issuance of the order to the Plaintiff.

(2) Judgment on the second argument

Article 124(1) of the Act and Article 124(2)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provide that a person who has obtained land transaction permission for the purpose of running an agricultural business shall use the land for the permitted purpose for two years from the time of acquisition of the land, except for the reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 124-2(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the head of a Si/Gun/Gu may order a person who fails to perform his/her duty to utilize the land to fulfill his/her duty to utilize the land within a reasonable period of time, and the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall impose a charge for compelling performance of the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree within the limit of 10/100 of the acquisition value of the land if he/she fails to comply therewith. Accordingly, in the case of a “person who has obtained land transaction permission for the purpose of running an agricultural business,” a person who has used the land for the permitted purpose, a market, etc. may issue an order for performance within a considerable period of time prescribed by Presidential Decree.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judge Final Prosecutor