Whether a measure to impose a loan fee for a state forest is an administrative disposition

As prescribed by the Forestry Act, etc., the act of leasing or selling state-owned forest land by the Minister of the Korea Forest Service or an administrative agency delegated by him/her shall not be deemed an administrative disposition taken unilaterally by an administrative agency regardless of the other party’s intent as the public authority, since a contract under private law with the other party on an equal footing with the other party is a private economic entity, and it shall not be deemed an administrative disposition.

Article 75 of the Forestry Act; Article 62 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Articles 38 and 25(3) of the State Property Act; Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 240 (Gong1983, 1507) and 83Nu292 decided Sep. 27, 1983 (Gong1983, 1617) and 83Nu291 decided Dec. 11, 1984 (Gong1985,170)

[Judgment of the court below]

The Chief of Gangseo-gu Forest Management Office of the Forestry Administration

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu12396 delivered on October 2, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As prescribed by the Forestry Act, etc., the Minister of the Korea Forest Service or an administrative agency delegated by him/her to lend or sell state-owned forest land shall not be deemed an administrative disposition unilaterally conducted by an administrative agency regardless of the other party’s intent as the subject of public authority, regardless of whether it is the subject of the public authority. This cannot be deemed an administrative disposition where the method of calculating rent is statutory and the method of calculating rent is stipulated to be subject to compulsory collection according to the example of collecting national taxes.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to forest laws or administrative dispositions such as theory of lawsuit. We cannot accept the argument against the court below as a different opinion.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)