[가건물철거등][집18(3)민,424]
State forests shall have the right to manage and dispose of state forests to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry unless they are under the management of other management authorities in accordance with Articles 4 (2) and 9 of the State Property Act.
State forests shall have the right to manage and dispose of state forests to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry unless they are under the management of other management authorities in accordance with Articles 4 (2) and 9 of the State Property Act.
Article 34 of the Forestry Act
Supreme Court Decision 68Da1941 Decided February 18, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 67Da1522 Decided January 31, 1968
The deceased plaintiff 1 et al. and four others
Defendant 1 and 30 others
Seoul High Court Decision 70Na138 decided August 27, 1970
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal 1 and 2 are examined as follows;
As long as state forests do not belong to the management of other management authorities pursuant to Articles 4(2) and 9 of the State Properties Act, it is the case where the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry exclusively has the authority to dispose of state forests or non-permanent state forests pursuant to Article 34 of the Forestry Act. (See Supreme Court Decision 68Da1491 delivered on Feb. 18, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 67Da1522 delivered on Jan. 31, 1968) if state forests are carried out by other organizations without authority to dispose of state forests, such disposition should be deemed null and void. Accordingly, according to the original judgment, since state forests are owned by the state forests and are not owned by the government and are sold on behalf of the state government, it cannot be seen that the non-party can not acquire ownership of state forests or non-party's independent disposal of state forests and thus, the court below's decision that did not have authority to dispose of state forests or non-party's independent disposal of forest land cannot be acquired from the non-party.
Therefore, each appeal is dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)