The validity of the disposition for sale of national forest by the Director General.

A. The parties are the administrative property under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of National Defense and the disposal of this land by the Administrator of the Incheon Office under the Ministry of Finance and Economy is alleged to be null and void, even though the court ruled that the disposal of the forest under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry under Article 34 of the former Forestry Act (Act No. 881 of Dec. 27, 61) is null and void, it cannot be said that the disposal by the

B. According to Article 34 of the former Forestry Act (Act No. 881, Dec. 27, 61) as national forest is disposed of by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, selling state-owned forest land subject to the application of the Forestry Act by the Director General of the Incheon National Office after the enforcement of the said Act is an invalid disposition by an unincorporated government agency.

Forestry Act 34

Korea

Korea Export Industry Corporation

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Intervenor joining the Defendant, etc.

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na3365 delivered on March 14, 1968

All appeals are dismissed.

The legal costs arising from the appeal by the defendants shall be borne by the defendants, and those arising from the appeal by the defendant et al. intervenor shall be borne by the defendant et al. intervenor.

Defendant 1’s attorney’s ground of appeal No. 1

According to the records, the plaintiff is an administrative property under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of National Defense, and the sale by the director general of the Ministry of Finance and Economy in December 20, 1963 is null and void since the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant foundation is invalid and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant foundation is also null and void, and since the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant 1 is also null and void again from the defendant, the plaintiff is filing a claim for cancellation, and the plaintiff is ultimately entitled to exercise a real right claim seeking cancellation of the registration of invalidation of each cause in the name of the defendant as the legitimate owner of the land. Thus, the ground for the plaintiff's assertion that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant is null and void is merely an attack method that makes it reasonable for the plaintiff's claim to be justified. Accordingly, according to Article 34 of the Forestry Act, the land in question is a state forest regulated by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Thus, the sale of state forest after the enforcement of the same Act by the director general of Incheon.

Judgment on the second ground for the same reason;

According to the decision of the court below, this case's forest was incorporated into the forest under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, by the resolution of the State Council on June 13, 1952, which was used as the military training site for the Japanese army in a certain period of time, and the forest was classified into the forest under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on June 13, 1952. On December 12, 1963, there is no dispute between the original defendant as to the facts that the forest was the forest at the time when the Director General of the Incheon City Office was in the forest under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and since the original judgment was a state forest under the Forestry Act at the time when the forest was fired, the court below was just after June 25, 196, which provided the United Nations forces to use it as the place where the National Defense was in a weak place, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the forest under the Forestry Act.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu