[대부국유임야양여거부처분취소][공1983.11.1.(715),1507]
Whether a refusal of an application for gratuitous grant by a forest fraternity constitutes an administrative disposition (negative)
Since the Minister of the Korea Forest Service’s act of lending, selling, or transferring state forests is a juristic act in private law as a private economic entity and cannot be deemed an administrative disposition exercising public power in a superior position, the rejection disposition rejecting an application for gratuitous concession of state forests submitted by the forest fraternity as a public interest corporation is not just a private law act
Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 75 of the Forestry Act, Paragraph 1 of Article 41 of the Forestry Act
Supreme Court Decision 83Nu247 delivered on September 13, 1983 (Dong Branch) 83Nu250 delivered on September 13, 1983 (Dong Branch) 83Nu252 delivered on September 13, 1983 (Dong Branch) 83Nu259 delivered on September 13, 1983 (Dong Branch) 83Nu322 delivered on September 13, 1983 (Dong Branch)
Rouri Forest System
Attorney Kim Dong-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu965 delivered on April 7, 1983
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.
Under the provisions of the Forestry Act, the former Forestry Act, or the former Forestry Act, the act of lending, selling, or transferring state-owned forests is a juristic act in private law as the subject of private economy and cannot be seen as an administrative disposition exercising public power in superior status. Thus, the defendant's rejection disposition of this case, which rejected the plaintiff's application for gratuitous concession, is merely an act in private law,
Even in cases where the Plaintiff, who filed an application for gratuitous grant of state forests of this case, is a public interest corporation established under the former Forestry Act, the Plaintiff’s refusal of gratuitous grant to the Plaintiff does not constitute the exercise of public authority by the Defendant in superior status, unlike in cases of individuals or private corporations.
In the same purport, the court below's rejection of the lawsuit in this case is just because the above rejection disposition is not subject to the administrative litigation, and there is no violation of the Constitution that abandons the principle of equality or the principle of protection of trust under the Constitution, such as the discussion of the arguments, and the timely precedents of the lawsuit are not appropriate precedents in this case, and therefore the argument is groundless.
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 Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)