산림경영계획인가 신청 반려처분 취소 청구
1. On July 20, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of rejecting the application filed by the Plaintiff for authorization of a forest management plan is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 9, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for authorization of a forest management plan (hereinafter “instant application”) to manage forest activities, such as deforestation, afforestation, etc. in a considerable area of B forest land in Cheongju-si (hereinafter “instant forest”).
B. In the registry of the instant forest land, C and 38 persons are registered as co-owners. On June 19, 2017, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supplement the “written consent of all co-owners on the register by July 10, 2017.” As the Plaintiff did not supplement it, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to supplement the “written consent of all co-owners by July 22, 2017.” However, the Plaintiff did not supplement it.
C. On July 20, 2017, the Defendant rejected the instant application pursuant to Article 22 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act and Article 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the above request for supplementation twice or more by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. On the grounds delineated below the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff has the right to file an application for authorization of a forest management plan, and therefore, it is unnecessary to supplement all co-owners’ consents on the forest register of this case.
Nevertheless, the instant disposition issued on a different premise is unlawful.
1 The plaintiff's assertion that the owner of the forest of this case is the plaintiff constitutes a clan of unique meaning consisting of D 14 years old, E and F descendants, and all the owners in the register of the forest of this case are the plaintiff's members of the clan in title trust of the plaintiff's forest of this case to the members of the clan.
In accordance with Article 8 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name, such title trust is valid.