Whether a mountainous district is a mountainous district prescribed by the Management of Mountainous Districts Act shall be determined depending on the actual status of land regardless of land category entered in the public register (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1979, Nov. 29, 2012). A person who intends to divert a mountainous district shall obtain permission to divert mountainous districts pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, and if mountainous districts to be diverted are not registered in the public record, he/she shall file an application for permission to divert mountainous districts under Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Mountainous Districts Management Act after newly registering the mountainous district pursuant

The lower court determined that the current status of the instant land constitutes a mountainous district prescribed in the Mountainous Districts Management Act, and that the Defendant diverted the instant land to create access roads, ditches, low temperature storage areas, etc. without permission from the competent authority. Examining the legal principles as seen earlier in light of the foregoing, the lower court did not err by erroneously applying Article 14(1) of the Mountainous Districts Management Act

In addition, even if examining evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for defendant

Justices Kim Jong-il