1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that Defendant Hong-gun has obtained authorization for farmland expansion and development project on May 3, 1975, through the procedures set out in its decision, when implementing the farmland expansion development project in Hong Dong-dong, including the original state forest, and recognized the above project authorization as a permission for farmland development pursuant to Article 24 (1) of the Farmland Expansion and Development Promotion Act, and deemed that the above project authorization was granted as a permission for farmland development pursuant to Article 24 (2) of the same Act, and it was deemed that the Forestry Act and the Forestry Products Control Act, which were enforced at the time under Article 30 of the same Act, were to have been cut, etc. under Article 30 of the same Act. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages under the premise that the act was lawfully implemented in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the rules of evidence related to the Farmland Expansion and Development Promotion Act and the Farmland Development Act.

2. According to the records and reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiffs' assertion that it is illegal to the plaintiffs' rejection of Defendant Hongsung-gun's official's order to prohibit the plaintiffs from applying for the removal of standing timber in writing and refusing to affix a theater for the confirmation of removal of standing timber even after the plaintiffs' oral request was made, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion on the ground that the public officials of Hongsung-gun did not put the plaintiffs' pressure to prohibit them from applying for the written request, but did not put the plaintiffs' legitimate application under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and regulations. Thus, according to Article 3 (1) of the Forestry Products Control Act which was enforced at the time of this case, the public officials of Hongsung-gun did not put a theater for the confirmation of removal of standing timber, and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu's rejection of the plaintiffs' request for the removal of the produced forest products from the forest can not be carried out with the certificate of permission of the Minister of the Korea Forest Service and the head of the Gun/Gu's authority to request the removal of the forest products can not be carried out.

3. According to the records, although the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of the Construction Division, who carried out the farmland expansion development project in this case, have a duty to remove the standing timber cut for the execution of the project and cause damage to the plaintiffs, neglect of follow-up management is an illegal act, the court below did not make any judgment as to the plaintiffs' assertion that it is an illegal act. However, it cannot be said that the public official who carries out the farmland expansion development project has a duty to carry out the procedures to remove the standing timber cut during the execution of the project, and it is not possible for the plaintiffs to demand the project executor to fulfill such procedures as the right to claim against the plaintiffs. Thus, the above plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted. Thus, the omission of judgment of the court below like the theory of lawsuit does not affect the conclusion of the judgment rejecting the plaintiff's claim, which is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)