beta
Text
Defendant
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) committed minor acts, such as creating drainage channels and arranging the ground thereof, on the ground that most standing timber, which existed in the part of 1,552 square meters (hereinafter “the instant part of land”) in Jinjin-si C, was used as a typhoon in the remaining land after most of them were extracted from D; and (c) was actually used as farmland. Therefore, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as changing the form and quality of mountainous district
On March 20, 201, the Defendant leased the instant land portion from D in order to use it for ginseng cultivation. At the time, D promised that D would obtain permission to change the form and quality of the instant land portion from the Defendant, and subsequently, D would demand H, an engineer of Pokele, to open a drainage channel on the instant land portion on April 9, 201, and the Defendant was aware that D, a lessor, would obtain permission to change the form and quality of the instant land, and had performed an act of opening a drainage channel, etc. on the instant land portion without obtaining permission from the competent authority. Thus, at the time, D, a lessor, was considered to have obtained permission to divert mountainous district.
Judgment
Whether a mountainous district constitutes an act of changing the form and quality of a mountainous district under the relevant legal principles shall be determined according to the actual phenomenon of the relevant land regardless of the land category in the public register, and even if a mountainous district has lost its phenomenon, if the lost state is temporary and it is possible to reinstate it, such land constitutes a mountainous district.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Do668, Dec. 13, 198; 2007Do1018, Jul. 10, 2008). The term “a change in the form and quality of a mountainous district” means a change in the form and quality of a mountainous district to the external form and form of the mountainous district, and a change in the form and quality of the mountainous district makes it difficult to restore the mountainous district to its original state due to such change.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do21, Apr. 23, 2002). The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.