(a) Whether the golf course facilities are included in community development facilities under Article 45 of the Enforcement Rule of the Forestry Act, one of the standards for cancellation of designation of reserved forests;

(b) Where the disposition agency may cancel it on the grounds that there are defects in the beneficial administrative dispositions;

(c) The case holding that the necessity for the public interest to preserve the Class 1 source development reserved forest for the development of water sources of reservoirs constitutes a strong case where interests in trust due to the revocation of the designation or cancellation disposition of a reserved forest, or disadvantages, etc. in golf course construction projects to be suffered due to such revocation are justified;

A. Golf course facilities are deemed not to fall under community development facilities, which are cited as one of the criteria for cancellation of designation of reserved forest under Article 57 of the former Forestry Act (amended by Act No. 4206 of Jan. 13, 1990), Article 45 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Forestry Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry No. 1046 of Jul. 14, 190).

B. In a case where the disposition authority revokes a disposition on the ground that there is a defect in the beneficial administrative disposition, the disposition may be revoked only when the public interest needs to be revoked, as it infringes on the rights or interests of the party to receive due to the cancellation, and when the disposition is made by comparing and comparing the needs of the public interest, the right to obtain benefits, the protection of trust and the infringement of legal stability, etc. to be borne by the party, and it is so strong that the public interest needs to justify the disadvantages to be borne by

C. According to the disposition to cancel the designation of a golf course construction project following the disposition to cancel the designation of a reserved forest, it would incur considerable damage to the cancellation of the disposition to cancel the designation of the reserved forest. However, the necessity of public interest to preserve the Class 1-I-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U.

A. Article 57 of the former Forestry Act (amended by Act No. 4206, Jan. 13, 1990); Article 45 subparag. 1 (b) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Forestry Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry No. 1046, Jul. 14, 1990). Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) and Article 27 of the

B. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9520 decided Apr. 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1390) 90Nu7760 decided Aug. 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 2442) 92Nu311 decided Jul. 24, 1992 (Gong192, 2565) 95Nu269 decided Aug. 25, 195 (Gong195Ha, 3292)

Attorney Lee Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of a Gun of a forest office;

Gwangju High Court Decision 93Gu3157 delivered on December 22, 1994

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In full view of the purport of relevant laws and regulations, it seems that golf course facilities do not constitute community development facilities, which are cited as one of the criteria for revoking designation of reserved forests under Article 57 of the former Forestry Act (amended by Act No. 4206, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same) under Article 45 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Forestry Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry No. 1046, Jul. 14, 1990; hereinafter the same).

Therefore, under the premise that the right to cancel the designation of a reserved forest is delegated to the defendant, and the right to determine whether the golf course project is included in the community development facility is also illegal, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's disposition to cancel the designation of a reserved forest cannot be deemed unlawful, which judged that the golf course facility falls under the community development facility prescribed in the above Enforcement Rule.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the disposition of this case is unlawful as it goes against the principle of trust and protection, and it is against the principle of public interest for the conservation of Class 1 orchard, which will be achieved by the disposition of this case, on the ground that the plaintiff's efforts and expenses invested in the golf course construction business conducted by the original defendant trust and accordingly, as well as the damage incurred by the disposition of revocation of the revocation of the designation of a reserved forest of this case (hereinafter "the disposition of this case"), and the circumstances that are likely to cause excessive damage to forests and environmental destruction due to the alteration of the golf course construction business plan of this case, etc.

However, in a case where the disposition agency cancels the disposition on the ground that there is a defect in the beneficial administrative disposition, it infringes the rights or interests of the person who will be suffered by the party due to the cancellation, so it is true that the disposition is revoked if it is revoked with the necessity of the public interest and the disadvantage such as protection of trust and infringement of the stability of legal life, etc. to be suffered by the party due to the cancellation, and if it is strong to justify the disadvantage that the public interest needs to sustain by the party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu311, Jul. 24, 1992).

However, the forest of this case is designated as a Class 1 water source development forest for the purpose of cultivating the water source of the reservoir located at the bottom of the 200 meters high water level. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s electric power plant (36 holes’s membership golf course, and 9 holes’s public golf course) is the prospective site for 9 holes in the above public golf course, and the wastewater (wastewater) discharged from the above public golf course flows into the above monthly reservoir. The Class 1 water source development reservoir designates the surrounding forest within 1,00 meters from the full water level of the reservoir, which is deemed to have an absolute impact on the water quality of major industrial water such as agricultural water, power generation, and industrial water supply. If the designation of the reserved forest of this case is revoked and the golf course is constructed, it is expected that the construction of the above golf course will not affect the water quality of the above public golf course due to blasting and soil outflow for the construction of the golf course, and it is expected that the construction of the golf course will be considerably damaged.

Therefore, the necessity of public interest to prevent such natural damage and water pollution is that the subject of the disposition in this case is a public golf course area of 9 holes, which is separately planned among 45 holess in the Plaintiff’s golf course business plan. In addition, considering the fact that the subject of the disposition in this case is a public golf course area of 45 holess in the Plaintiff’s golf course business plan, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s interest in trust due to the revocation of the designation of a reserved forest or the disadvantage that the Plaintiff would incur due to the revocation of the designation of a reserved forest does not constitute cases where the Plaintiff is strong enough to justify the disadvantages, etc. caused to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition in this case seems to be illegal, and the Defendant’s consent to the residents’ consent with the content that the Plaintiff would not oppose the above golf course construction business from nearby village residents is not different. Ultimately, the lower

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)