In light of the provisions of Article 5 (1) of the Land Clearing Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 14, Aug. 14, 1963; Act No. 1, 1963; Act No. 1392; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and Article 33 of the same Act, the court below held that the forest land and other property necessary for the forest land among the property reverted to the State shall be managed and disposed of by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, notwithstanding the provisions of the State Property Act, shall be included in the provisions of Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State Property and the provisions of Article 4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if all or part of the land reverted to the State is a state-owned temporary area, it shall hear the opinion of the Central Land Clearing Council, and therefore, it shall not be included in the forest land belonging to the State-owned temporary area of Article 5 (1) of the Land Clearing Promotion Act.

However, in Article 1 of the Land Development Promotion Act, which provides the legislative purpose of the same Act, the purpose of this Act is to promote the development of land in order to increase the productivity of agriculture and stabilize the farmer's economy, and in Article 2 (2) of the same Act, the term "private land in this Act refers to any undeveloped land (including public land) other than state-owned property." If the forest belonging to the original state is not included in the preservation of state-owned property, the opposite interpretation of this provision is not only the private land but also the private land belonging to the original state. In light of the legislative spirit of the Land Development Promotion Act as seen above, it is reasonable to deem that the previous forest belonging to the original state is subject to the application of the Land Development Promotion Act, unless there is considerable reason to exclude the application of the Land Development Promotion Act.

Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the Land Clearing Promotion Act at least as it includes the property belonging to the State, such as the forest land reverted to the State, regardless of the term not covered by this Act (see the amended provisions of Article 33 of the Land Clearing Promotion Act, Act No. 14, Aug. 14, 1963; Act No. 1392, Aug. 14, 1963). Thus, it is obvious that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the Land Clearing Promotion Act, and therefore, it is reasonable to discuss this appeal. Accordingly, the court below should reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the Daegu High Court.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall have the authority to transfer a red net holiday.