Whether the disposition of leasing a state forest is an administrative disposition under public law

Although Defendant-Do Governor’s act of leasing or selling the instant forest land, which is State-owned property (not reverted property) to the Plaintiffs, is merely a so-called management act performed by the State for the purpose of generating effects under the general private law in the same qualification as an individual, and it cannot be deemed as a disposition or legal relationship under the public law, which is subject to administrative litigation.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

63Nu79 decided July 25, 1963 (Abolition of Special Act on the Treatment of State and Public Property) 160 Myeonctrine 1 (148, 1163, Ka2685, 11B 22)

Plaintiff 1 and 14 others

The Gyeonggi-do Governor Park Chang-won

The plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs shall revoke the administrative disposition that the defendant leased to Nonparty 1 and 2 on April 14, 1962 the forest land entered in the list of annexed Forms 1 through 14.

② As to the forest recorded in the list No. 1 of the attached Table 2, Plaintiff 2 against Plaintiff 3 on the forest recorded in the list No. 2 of the attached Table No. 3 of the same subparagraph with respect to Plaintiff 4 on the forest recorded in the list No. 3 of the same subparagraph No. 4, Plaintiff 5 on Plaintiff 6 on the forest recorded in the list No. 5 of the same subparagraph No. 6, Plaintiff 8 and Plaintiff 9 on Plaintiff 7 on the forest recorded in the list No. 7 of the same subparagraph, Plaintiff 10 on Plaintiff 11, Plaintiff 11 on the forest recorded in the list No. 9 of the same subparagraph No. 10, Plaintiff 12 on Plaintiff 13 on the forest recorded in the list No. 11 of the same subparagraph No. 12, Plaintiff 14 on the forest recorded in the list No. 12, and Plaintiff 15 on the list No. 14 on the forest recorded in the list No. 13 of the same subparagraph

(3) A judgment shall be rendered at the expense of the defendant.

As to the nature of the Defendant’s act of leasing the forest land as stated in the purport of the claim to Nonparty 1 and 2, the Defendant’s act of leasing it to Nonparty 1 and 2 cannot be seen as a disposition or legal relationship under the public law as stipulated in Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, since the Defendant’s act of leasing it to Nonparty 1 and 2 cannot be seen as a disposition or legal relationship under the public law, which is the disposition or legal relationship under Article 2(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, even though it was originally reverted property under Article 2(1) of the same Act and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and it can be recognized that it was a State property transferred to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry after obtaining approval from the President on June 49, 1952 through a resolution of the State Council, and there is no evidence to reverse this differently, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s act of leasing it to Nonparty 1 and 2 without the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff as to the lease contract and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff.

Judges Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)