Five years after registration, no agricultural land preservation charge

1. 01Question

   Where farmland was converted under a permit for use as the site of a facility, is a person who, more than five years after the date the completion inspection certificate for that facility was issued or the date it was entered in the building register, wants to use the land for another purpose liable for the agricultural land preservation charge under Article 40(2) of the Farmland Act, and must it separately be examined whether the purpose of conversion has in substance been completed?

2. 02Holding

   No on both counts. Once the completion inspection certificate has been issued or the facility entered in the building register, and five years have passed from that date, the duty under Article 40(2) of the Farmland Act does not arise, and no separate inquiry into whether the conversion purpose has in substance been completed is needed. Those two dates are examples of the date on which the purpose of conversion is completed, and where a facility has been built on farmland and its completion inspection certificate has been issued or it has been entered in the building register, the land may be seen as having in fact lost its function so far as restoration is concerned.

   Summary of the holding, verbatim

   농지법 제40조 제1항, 제2항, 농지법 시행령 제59조 제1항, 제2항에 의하면, 농지를 어떤 시설물의 부지로 사용할 목적으로 농지전용허가를 받고 그 시설물의 준공검사필증 교부일 또는 그 시설물이 건축물대장에 등재된 날로부터 5년이 지난 경우에는 이를 위 목적과 다른 목적으로 사용하려고 하더라도 농지법 제40조 제2항에 의한 농지보전부담금을 낼 의무가 없고, 이와 별도로 농지의 전용목적이 실질적으로 완료되었는지를 따져볼 필요는 없다.

   Unofficial English translation

   Under Article 40 (1) and (2) of the Farmland Act and Article 59 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, where a person has obtained permission to convert farmland for the purpose of using the farmland as the site for a certain facility and five years have elapsed from the date of issuance of the certificate of completion of construction inspection for the facility or the date the facility was entered in the building register, such person is under no obligation to pay the farmland preservation charge under Article 40 (2) of the Farmland Act even if the person seeks to use the farmland for a purpose other than the foregoing purpose, and there is no need to examine separately whether the purpose of the conversion of the farmland has been substantially completed.

3. 03Disposition

   Dismissed Stated in the decision

   상고를 모두 기각한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   All appeals are dismissed.

4. 04Form of the test

   Elements stated Stated in the decision

   그 부과요건은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 법문대로 해석하여야 하고 합리적 이유 없이 확장해석하거나 유추해석하는 것은 허용되지 않는다

   Unofficial English translation

   the requirements for the imposition of the charge must be interpreted according to the text of the statute absent special circumstances, and expansive interpretation or analogous interpretation without reasonable grounds is not permitted

5. 05Factors

   • 그 부과요건은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 법문대로 해석하여야 하고 합리적 이유 없이 확장해석하거나 유추해석하는 것은 허용되지 않는다
   • ‘준공검사필증을 교부한 날’ 또는 ‘건축물대장에 등재된 날’은 ‘그 밖의 농지의 전용목적이 완료된 날’의 예시라고 보는 것이 문맥과 체계상 자연스럽고
   • 위 조항을 준공검사필증이 교부되거나 건축물대장에 등재된 경우에도 농지의 전용목적이 실질적으로 완료될 것을 요구하여 이에 대한 별도의 심사를 해야 하는 것으로 해석하기는 어렵다
   • 그 농지는 사실상 원상회복이 어려울 정도로 농지로서의 기능을 상실하였고 그 시설물의 부지로서 농지전용 목적사업에 사용되고 있다고 볼 수도 있다

   Unofficial English translation

   • the requirements for the imposition of the charge must be interpreted according to the text of the statute absent special circumstances, and expansive interpretation or analogous interpretation without reasonable grounds is not permitted

   • ‘the date on which the certificate of completion of construction inspection was issued’ or ‘the date of entry in the building register’ is an example of ‘the date on which the purpose of conversion of the farmland has been completed,’ which is natural in light of the context and the system, and

   • it is difficult to interpret the above Article as requiring that, even where a certificate of completion of construction inspection has been issued or an entry has been made in the building register, the purpose of conversion of the farmland must be substantially completed, and as requiring that a separate examination be conducted with respect thereto

   • the farmland has in fact lost its function as farmland to such an extent that restoration to its original state is difficult, and it may also be regarded as being used for the business project for which the conversion of farmland was permitted, as the site for the facility

6. 06Relation to precedent

   Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision

   대법원 2022. 12. 29. 선고 2022다218585 판결(공2023상, 365)

   Unofficial English translation

   Supreme Court Decision 2022Da218585 decided December 29, 2022 (Gong 2023 Sang, 365)

   Decisions referred to

   대법원 2022. 12. 29. 선고 2022다218585 판결(공2023상, 365)

7. 07Burden of proof

   Not addressed Not in the decision

8. 08Open question and revisit condition

   When neither a completion inspection certificate was issued nor an entry in the building register was made, how is the date on which the purpose of conversion was otherwise completed to be determined?

   Any amendment to Article 40(2) of the Farmland Act or Article 59(1) and (2) of its Enforcement Decree, in particular on how the date of completion of the conversion purpose is fixed outside the two examples, would require this entry to be read again. So would a later decision determining that date on a different record.

Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.

Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.