임산물굴취불허가처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 4, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant to examine whether the said forest constitutes a restricted area, such as felling standing trees, in order to conduct a business of extracting pine trees on a 12,500 square meters of forest land B in Gyeonggi-do, Busan-do, and 12,630 square meters of forest land.
B. However, on December 7, 2012, the Defendant sent a reply to the Plaintiff that permission to extract standing timber is not permissible on the grounds of forest conservation and landscape maintenance, etc.
C. On May 7, 2013, the Plaintiff again filed an application with the Defendant for permission to excavate trees from 27 m3 m3,000 square meters of the said forest land (hereinafter “instant forest”).
Pursuant to Article 36 of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Forest Resources Act"), Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Articles 4 and 5 of the Guidelines for the Preservation and Use of Trees (Rules No. 607 of the Forestry Administration, hereinafter referred to as the "Rules for the Preservation and Establishment of Forest Resources") shall be conducted to the extent that it does not impair the conservation and composition of forest land or the landscape thereof.
The diameter of the breast height of pine trees subject to the extraction of the forest of this case is at least 35cm and there is a risk of disaster caused by damage to the mountainous district due to the unavoidable extraction using heavy equipment.
The forest of this case is located around the roads of the Daejeon and the C-C-C-C-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P
On May 8, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-permission to mine forest products (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on May 10, 2013 to the Plaintiff on the following grounds.
E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the administrative appeals commission of Gyeongnam-do, but the said claim was dismissed on July 25, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The instant disposition is made.