Incorporated Foundation (Attorney Han-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Ulsan Metropolitan City Head of Ulsan Metropolitan City (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 22, 2009

1. On November 10, 2008, the Defendant’s disposition of accepting applications for the formulation of an urban management plan against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Progress of the waste management business by Nonparty 1 corporation

(1) Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. submitted a general waste treatment business plan to the Gyeongnam-do Governor, who is the permitting authority, for the construction of a landfill site for waste treatment business on two and six lots of land outside Ulsan-si, Ulsan-si, Ulsan-si (Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-si) and six parcels of land. On May 30, 1995, it received a proper notification from the Gyeongnam-do Governor on the ground that it was subject to the appropriate notification on the general waste treatment business plan.

(2) On July 18, 1996, the non-party 1 corporation obtained approval for the location of public facilities from the Do governor, and paid alternative afforestation expenses, mountainous district conversion charges, etc. to the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor (Ulsan Metropolitan City, repealed by the Act on the Establishment, etc. of Ulsan Metropolitan City, July 15, 1997, and succeeded to its business and property; hereinafter the same shall apply) without distinction. After completing the development activity report for the construction period of three years on December 30, 1996, the non-party 1 corporation started construction works for the entry of waste treatment facilities from May 29, 197, after obtaining permission for the diversion of reserved forest and permission for the alteration of the form and quality of forest.

(3) However, from around July 1995, the transferor filed a civil petition for objection with the Ulsan Metropolitan City Ulsan Metropolitan City residents around the land to be reclaimed for the said waste. Accordingly, the non-party 1 corporation requested on June 8, 1998 the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor not to file an application for waste treatment business license within three years from the date of receiving the appropriate notice of the business plan, and the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor extended the period of application for permission by six months until December 298.

(4) After that, the expiration date of the period of application for permission extended due to the residents' interference with construction, and the non-party 1 corporation filed an application for extension of the period of application on December 21, 1998 to the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor again on December 29, 199, but the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor sent a reply that the approval for extension was impossible on December 28, 1998.

(5) Accordingly, on December 1, 1999, the non-party 1 corporation filed a lawsuit against the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor for cancellation such as the extension refusal of the application period for the permission of the general waste reclamation business with the court No. 99Gu113, and was sentenced by the court of this case on December 1, 1999 that "the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor's refusal of the extension of the application period for the permission of the final waste disposal business against the non-party 1 corporation on December 28, 1998" and the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor filed an appeal with the Busan High Court No. 200Nu31 on October 20, 200, but the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. Progress of establishment of the Plaintiff Incorporated Foundation

(1) On the other hand, on January 11, 2002, between the two North Korea Preservation Association and the non-party 1 corporation drafted a written agreement between the two North Korea Preservation Association and the non-party 1 corporation that "the non-party 1 corporation consented to the cremation and charnel-related projects by the non-party 1 corporation or Ulsan Metropolitan City instead of waiving the waste project, and the two North Korea Preservation Association shall submit the original written consent of residents of the village in relation to the charnel-related projects to the non-party 1 corporation, and the non-party 1 corporation shall cancel the execution of provisional seizure against real estate against the 19 village representative after the agreement."

(2) Thereafter, Non-party 2, the representative director of Non-party 1 corporation, was the non-party 2, non-party 1 corporation, and the non-party 3, who was the non-party 1 corporation, filed an application for the establishment of the foundation with the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor on June 4, 2005, equipped with the articles of incorporation and meeting minutes of the foundation corporation, the board of directors of the board of directors of the foundation, and the list of executive officers of the foundation on the ground of approximately 194,578 square meters of forest land in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and the same Ri (hereinafter referred to as "the non-party 2") and the management of the creation and operation of the charnel Park facilities, the production, installation and operation of the charnel tomb, the charnel tomb, the charnel tower tower, and the charnel Do governor rejected the application for the permission of establishment of the foundation on October 12, 2005.

(3) Accordingly, on May 10, 2008, the non-party 2 filed a lawsuit against the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor to revoke the revocation of the permission for establishment of the foundation under the court 2005Guhap3237, and was sentenced to a full favorable judgment from this court on May 10, 2008 that "the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor's revocation of the provisional disposition not to establish the foundation against the non-party 2 on October 12, 2005," and the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor filed an appeal with the Busan High Court 2006Nu2510 on December 8, 2006, but the appeal was dismissed on December 8, 2006. The above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

(4) Around May 2007, Nonparty 2 submitted to the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor a plan for the creation of a “Yulsan Park development project” with the content of installing a 8,000 malle park on the land of 194,578m2 in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do, U.S., the two documents of Ulsan-do 98m2. On July 2, 2007, the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor notified Nonparty 2 of the establishment permission for the establishment of an incorporated foundation with the type of business as “the installation, operation, and management of the charnel facilities and the establishment, operation, and management of the incidental business.”

(5) The Plaintiff completed the registration of incorporation on July 13, 2007.

(c) Progress from filing an application for a proposal to formulate an urban management plan;

(1) Thereafter, on May 21, 2008, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a proposal for formulating an urban management plan on the charnel facilities and access roads with the project period of 107,495 square meters on the ground of 107,495 square meters of forest land in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "2 omitted) for a daily forest of 107,495 square meters, “from 2007 to 2030 square meters,” and the amount of the lock-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the purpose of “92,000 square meters”. However, on July 16, 2008, the Defendant rejected the proposal in addition to the above urban management plan: “The supply and demand plan for the charnel facilities in Ulsan-do Metropolitan City for the purpose of 2020 years.” In addition, the Plaintiff’s 92,000 access roads secured are merely 0% of the area secured, and the Plaintiff’s ground for land suitability assessment, environmental review, etc.”

(2) On September 10, 2008, the Plaintiff supplemented the basis data and written opinions of residents in accordance with the Defendant’s aforementioned return on September 10, 2008, and partially altered the project period, and submitted to the Defendant a re-written proposal for formulating an urban management plan regarding the charnel facilities with the project period of “from 2007 to 2050 square meters,” and the amount of the charnel mouth water for the purpose of “92,000 square meters,” on the ground of which the project period is 107,495 square meters of forest land in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “instant site for application”). Meanwhile, the Plaintiff submitted a written proposal to the Defendant for formulating the urban management plan regarding the charnel facilities (hereinafter “instant proposal for drafting the urban management plan”). Meanwhile, as to the part of the supply and demand plan for funeral facilities among the aforementioned reasons for the Defendant’s return, the Plaintiff substituted it by submitting a written reply to the purport of disputing

(3) On November 10, 2008, the Defendant predicted that the aggregate facilities of 45,286 in total need to be installed by November 10, 2008 under the “mid- to long-term supply and demand plan for funeral facilities in Ulsan Metropolitan City” established on December 12, 2004. As of November 2008, the Defendant is promoting installation of aggregate facilities of 45,347 up to 2020 in Ulsan Metropolitan City. The Plaintiff’s charnel facilities in this case exceed the supply and demand analysis quantity of funeral facilities in the middle and long-term supply and demand plan for the funeral facilities in Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City. ② The Plaintiff’s aggregate facilities in this case exceeded the aggregate facilities, and ② the nature-friendly direction for natural burial grounds, such as water burial grounds, and ③ the site of this case should be drafted as a preserved mountainous district under the classification of mountainous districts and return the plan for conversion of mountainous districts, which is an area surrounding the mountain area.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 5, 10, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 9, Gap evidence 4, 9, 11-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2-3, 4, and Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful in light of the above disposition grounds and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and that the plaintiff should cancel the disposition on the following grounds.

(1) On January 11, 2002 between the non-party 1 corporation and the two North Korean Preservation Association, the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor actively proposed that the non-party 1 corporation apply for the establishment of a charnel facility project, and subsequently ordered a public opinion to accept the plaintiff's proposal for the formulation of the instant urban management plan, which is premised on the establishment of a foundation by establishing the foundation. The plaintiff trusted this, thereby securing the ownership of the site of this case, and entered into a project implementation agreement, such as securing the ownership of the site of this case and concluding a project implementation agreement with the committee for the promotion of the memorial park of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor. The disposition of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the principle of trust protection.

(2) The Defendant’s internal assessment of the instant disposition is unreasonable and unreasonable, and it is not a matter to determine whether the instant disposition is appropriate at the stage of formulating an urban management plan. Furthermore, there is an error of law that deviates from discretion or abused the instant disposition.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether such a violation violates the principle of trust protection

(A) First of all, with respect to whether the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor issued a public statement of opinion to the effect that he would apply for the business of installing charnel facilities to the non-party 1 corporation, the following facts and the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6 were considered as a whole: ① The representatives of the two North Korea Preservation Association held a meeting on Jan. 7, 2002 and passed a resolution that "it shall attract charnel houses and crematoriums to the site of waste business of the non-party 1 corporation"; ② On Jan. 11, 2002, while the public officials of the Ulsan Metropolitan City were present, the non-party 1 corporation and the two North Korea Preservation Association did not agree to give up the waste disposal business, instead of giving up the waste disposal business, the two North Korea Preservation Association did not recommend the non-party 1 corporation or Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor to provide the original consent to the village residents' projects related to charnel, and the two North Korea Preservation Association did not recognize the agreement to the non-party 1 corporation as the representative of the non-party 1 corporation to the above agreement.

(B) Next, in light of the overall purport of the arguments as to whether the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor established a foundation with permission to establish the foundation and ordered the Plaintiff to indicate public opinion on the proposal of the urban management plan of this case, the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor received a plan for the creation of the "Ulsan Urban Park" with the contents of the establishment of the 8,000 equipment from Nonparty 2 around May 2, 2007 after the judgment against the Plaintiff was final and conclusive in a lawsuit not to revoke permission to establish the foundation, the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor received a plan for the establishment of the "Ulsan Urban Park" with the contents of the 8,00 equipment of the 8,00 equipment for the establishment of the foundation. After reviewing the plan, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the establishment permission was given to Nonparty 2 on July 2, 2007 as the "establishment and operation of the aggregate facilities and the establishment and operation of the incidental business." On the other hand, while the grounds for the establishment permission of the foundation of this case is the Civil Act, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff's National Land Planning Act is the National Land Planning Act.

(C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the instant disposition violates the principle of trust protection is without merit.

(2) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused

(A) Although the administrative body has a relatively wide range of planning discretion in formulating and determining a specific urban planning, there is a restriction that the interests of the persons related to the urban planning should be fairly compared and calculated among the public and private interests, as well as between the public and private interests. Thus, in a case where the administrative body fails to maintain the balance of interests in the formulation and determination of the urban planning or omits any matters to be included in the subject to consideration of the balance of interests, or where there is a lack of legitimacy and objectivity despite the imposition of a balance of interests, the decision of the administrative plan can be deemed an illegal disposition that deviates from and abused discretion, and in addition, it should be effective and appropriate to achieve the purpose of administrative in accordance with the principle of proportionality (the principle of proportionality), and should not lead to a minimum infringement as much as possible, and it should not be capable of carrying out the public interest that is intended to infringe upon by the introduction of the means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu1501, Apr. 24, 1998; 9Nu6606, Feb. 6, 1996).

In light of the above legal principles as to the determination of urban planning, we will examine the instant disposition in accordance with the Defendant’s ground for disposition, which is cited by the Defendant.

(b) in excess of the estimated demand under the “mid- and long-term supply and demand plan for funeral facilities in Ulsan Metropolitan City”

1) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 7, Ulsan Metropolitan City established and promoted a “mid- and long-term supply and demand plan for funeral facilities in Ulsan Metropolitan City” (Evidence No. 5; hereinafter “the plan for supply and demand of funeral facilities in December 2004”) around December 2004. According to the plan above, about 45,286 [10,859] between 204 and 2020 (from 2004, up to 2010, up to 34,427] for the purpose of determining the aggregate facilities in Ulsan Metropolitan City as of the closing date of the argument in this case, it is anticipated that the aggregate facilities are necessary, and there is no possibility that the aggregate facilities will be additionally secured from 2004 to 34,427,207, 207, 204, 207, 307, 207, 207, etc., for the purpose of determining the aggregate facilities in Ulsan Metropolitan City.

2) However, according to Gap evidence 2-4, 5, 6, 9, Eul evidence 16, 17, Eul evidence 7, and each fact inquiry into Han Bank, the plaintiff secured 15 lots of land at the time of drafting the instant urban management plan 96,980m2 at the time of including the plaintiff or the representative director, about 90.2% of the total land size (90.5% of the total land size owned by the State 4, and about 90.5% of the total land supply and demand plan for the 15,000 m2, the total land supply and demand for the 15,000 m2, and the total land supply and demand for the 2,000 m2, the 2,000 m2, the 15,000 m2, the 15,000 m2, the 15,000 m2, the 15,000 m.

3) The instant charnel facilities, along with the above recognized facts, are substantially distinguishable from general charnel facilities in terms of consumers’ side. The project period following the proposal for the formulation of the instant urban management plan, “from 2007 to 2050.” The period of project according to the plan for supply and demand of funeral facilities in December 2004 shows a large difference between “from 2004 to 2020”, which is the demand forecast period in accordance with the plan for supply and demand of funeral facilities in the relevant period. The project for the development of Ulsan Summer Park was started in the construction around April 2009. The project for the development of the relevant charnel facilities in the Republic of Korea, the other foundation, and the project for the development of the charnel facilities in the Ulsan Park and the Seocheon Park of the 200th National University, there is no evidence to verify its progress, and it is difficult to readily conclude that there was a significant change in the estimated supply and demand plan for the funeral facilities in the supply and demand of the 20th National Funeral facilities in the relevant case.”

(C) Changes in funeral culture

However, it is difficult to view that the instant disposition is reasonable and reasonable, on the grounds that the demand for charnel facilities due to changes in funeral culture is anticipated to decrease in the supply of charnel facilities, as long as there is no evidence to confirm that the trend of changes in funeral culture is certain or certain, such as water burial among the residents of Ulsan Metropolitan City, and there is no evidence to confirm that there is a decrease in the demand for charnel facilities due to changes in funeral culture.

(d) threat of harm to natural scenery;

살피건대, 갑 제2호증의 9, 을 제12호증, 을 제13호증의 1 내지 16의 각 기재에 의하면, 이 사건 신청부지는 소나무류와 참나무류 등이 밀생하고 있으며, 1㏊당 평균축적이 95.11㎡로서 울산광역시 울주군 관내 임지의 평균축적율의 138.20%에 이르고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 다른 한편, 갑 제2호증의 9의 기재와 갑 제13호증의 1 내지 7, 을 제3호증의 1의 영상에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 이 사건 도시관리계획 입안제안을 하면서 비교적 양호한 입목이 산재해 있는 능선부는 녹지로 원형보존하겠다는 취지의 사전환경성검토서를 첨부한 사실, 이 사건 신청부지는 인근 마을과 주된 통행로에서 일정 거리 이상 떨어진 곳에 위치하고 있어 일부 수목을 제거하더라도 그 피해가 상대적으로 적은 지역인 사실 등을 인정할 수 있고, 이에 더하여 이 사건 신청부지는 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 산지전용허가가 가능한 지역인 점에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 신청부지에 이 사건 납골시설을 설치함으로써 자연경관이 훼손될 우려가 있다는 이유를 들어 이 사건 처분을 한 것은 합리성이 없다.

(e) Restriction on conversion of mountainous district

1) First of all, there is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the site for the instant application falls under “a mountainous district for forestry use” among preserved mountainous districts prescribed in Article 4(1)1 (a) of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, according to the above [Attachment 4] subparagraph 7 (g) and Article 18(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, the scope of application of the standards for permission for mountainous district conversion and the detailed criteria for each project and scale based on Articles 12(3), 18, and 20(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, and Article 18(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the land for forestry use can be converted into mountainous district with a size of less than 30,00 square meters. ② The average gradient of the site for the instant application is 25.29 degrees, and according to the above [Attachment 4] subparagraph 6 (a), it is possible to grant permission for mountainous district conversion to install the instant site.

2) There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the instant site for the instant application is 107,495 square meters and the area exceeding 30,000 square meters that can be permitted to convert mountainous districts for forestry use. However, according to Article 18(3)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, where a mountainous district is converted to install urban planning facilities, etc. in accordance with an urban management plan under the National Land Planning Act, the restriction on the area under paragraph (1) of the same Article is not applicable. The Defendant’s above assertion is without merit without any need to further examine.

3) According to the records as above (2) 2, Gap evidence 2-9, Eul evidence 15-1, and Eul evidence 15-2, the average gradient of the site for the application of this case can be acknowledged as 25.29 degrees. On the other hand, pursuant to the proviso to subparagraph 6 (a) of attached Table 4, where a consultation was held on the designation of a zone, etc. in a mountainous district under Article 8 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act and an average slope level is examined, an average slope level may be excluded from the calculation of slope level. According to Articles 8(1) and 14(2) of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, Article 7(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, and Article 7(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act [Attachment 2] of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, the head of the relevant administrative agency may request consultation with the Minister of the Korea Forest Service in order to take an administrative disposition deemed to be permitted by permission for mountainous district conversion under other Acts, and the defendant's allegation that the above application of mountainous district management committee is extremely unreasonable.

[A] The defendant asserts that the site of this case is not included in the area subject to consultation, according to the scope of consultation on the area, etc. in mountainous districts according to Article 8 (1) of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, Article 7 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and attached Table 1 of the same Act. However, according to the above [attached Table 1] 3, the area designated or determined to be used for development purposes pursuant to other Acts is also included in the area subject to consultation, and the defendant's above assertion

4) Therefore, it is unreasonable to take the instant disposition on the ground that the instant site constitutes an area in which permission for mountainous district conversion is not permitted.

(f) Other grounds for the Defendant’s assertion

1) Next, the Defendant’s initial disposal of nine parcels (80% compared to the area of the instant site) among 15 parcels is deemed to be an interim aptitude grade (B) among the comprehensive levels set by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs pursuant to Article 27(3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act. According to the above guidelines, an urban management planning planning formulation zone corresponding to the interim aptitude grade (B) among the comprehensive levels may be formulated through deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee only where it is practically difficult to locate in other areas or where supply and demand of land is insufficient. In this case, the instant site for the instant application is an area where it is impossible to formulate a new urban planning plan for the installation of the instant urban planning facilities, and thus, the land of Ulsan-gun (2 omitted), among the instant site for the instant application of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, shall not be deemed to be the site for which the instant urban planning facilities are installed, and shall not be deemed to be the site for which the instant urban planning facilities are to be newly constructed and publicly announced under the National Land Planning Act, and the relevant urban planning facilities plan to be formulated.

2) According to the above (1) 1, Gap evidence 2-9, Eul evidence 10, among the 15 lots of land for which the application of this case was filed, the intermediate aptitude grade (B grade) among the land comprehensive aptitude grade and the remaining six parcels of land are assessed as development aptitude grade (C grade). However, on the other hand, pursuant to Article 3-2-5 (2) (c) of the Guidelines on Land Appropriateness Assessment, in the case of urban planning facilities and environmental facilities among urban planning facilities, even if they fall under the interim aptitude grade (B grade), the drafting authority may formulate an urban management plan through deliberation by the urban planning committee. According to Article 2 subparagraph 6 (6) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the charnel facilities correspond to health sanitation facilities, and even according to the above guidelines, the site for the application of this case constitutes an area where urban management planning can be formulated for charnel facilities. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3) According to the above (2) 2, Eul evidence 3-2, and Eul evidence 4, among the site for the application in this case, the land of Ulsan-gun (hereinafter 2 omitted) can be recognized as having been determined as having the urban planning facilities (mining 3-5 lines) for the construction of the urban planning facilities (mining 3-5 lines) on the outer circulation roads of Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan-gu, but on the other hand, according to Articles 3(1) and 4(1) of the Regulations on the Determination, Structure and Installation Standards of Urban Planning Facilities established by the Minister of Land and Transport pursuant to Article 43(2) of the National Land Planning Act, if necessary for the rational use of the land, two or more urban planning facilities may be determined together on the same land. If necessary for the proper and rational use of the land in the area where urban planning facilities are located, only part of the space where the urban planning facilities are located can be determined by dividing the urban planning facilities by the area where the urban planning facilities are located, and in light of the contents of the above statutes and the above detailed plan of the road not established until now.

4) As to the above third claim, the purport of the claim is identical to the part that exceeds the estimated demand amount pursuant to the supply and demand plan of the funeral facility supply and demand plan of December 2004 among the grounds for the disposition in this case. As seen earlier, the above grounds for the disposition in this case are unreasonable and unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit without need for further review.

5) The above (4) The basic urban planning is a comprehensive plan proposing the basic spatial structure and long-term development direction of a city. The plan is presented in the general direction of urban development such as land utilization plan, environmental plan, park greenbelts plan, etc. However, its plan merely serves as a guideline for urban planning formulation, and thus it has no direct binding force on administrative agencies and the general public (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du1893, Apr. 12, 2007; 2000Du8226, Oct. 11, 202); and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

6) The above 5th ground of appeal was examined as to the above 5th ground of appeal, and there is no evidence to support that the site of the instant application constitutes a clearance zone designated and publicly notified pursuant to Article 49 of the Road Act and Article 8 of the Motorway Act. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(G) Sub-decisions

As seen above, the Defendant’s taxation on the grounds of the instant disposition is unreasonable and unreasonable, and there is no ground statute that prohibits or restricts the installation of the instant charnel facilities in the instant application site, and furthermore, considering the various circumstances asserted by the Defendant, it is difficult to view that there is a special public interest situation that can return the draft of the instant urban management plan even if considering the circumstances alleged by the Defendant. Accordingly, the instant disposition is in violation of law that lacks legitimacy and objectivity in balancing profits, thereby deviating from and abusing discretionary authority.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)

1) The Plaintiff’s representative director, Nonparty 3, and 4, together owned by the Plaintiff, include the forest land in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “3 omitted”).

2) Only 413 square meters equivalent to the co-ownership of Nonparty 3 (3305.8/14724) shall be included in the total incorporated area of the forest land 2,108 square meters.

3) The defendant presented a written reply on the basis of "Article 10 (Restriction on Activities in Areas Restricted to Mountainous Districts)", which seems to be a clerical error in "Article 12 (Restriction on Activities in Preserved Mountainous Districts)" of the Mountainous Districts Management Act.