(a) Where the Minister of Finance and Economy has given the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry a notice of nationalization without taking prescribed procedures for nationalization of forest belonging to the State;

(b) Coritality for the forest land reverted to the State after the Act on Property Disposal for Reversion is enforced;

A. After the enforcement of the Government Organization Act and this Act, the right to manage forest reverted to the Republic of Korea has only the Minister of Finance and Economy, and the right of jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry under this Ordinance has been extinguished due to the repeal of subparagraph 11 of the Decree on Management contrary thereto.

B. Even though the Minister of Finance gives the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry a notice of nationalization of forest land belonging to the State, nationalization cannot be recognized unless the Minister makes a proposal to the Minister and received a resolution of the State Council.

Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Property Disposal for Reversion; Article 5(1) of the Act on Property Disposal for Reversion

Kim Yong-ju

Director General of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Government

New Promotion Business Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 59Da114 delivered on December 21, 1960

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The part concerning the defendant as to the defendant among the costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant's intervenor joining the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer and the defendant defendant Kim Jong-young and the grounds of appeal by the defendant defendant defendant Kim Jong-young are as stated in each of the grounds of appeal by each court below.

1. According to Article 4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Management of Property Belonging to the State, among the grounds of appeal by the defendant and the intervenor joining the defendant Kim Jong-young, as to the ground of appeal by the defendant and the intervenor joining the defendant Kim Jong-young, the real estate falling under Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Management of Property Belonging to the State, and real estate for public use or public use as prescribed in paragraph (2) of the same Article, as the head of the relevant division proposed by the Minister of Finance and Economy, and transferred the property list to the Minister of Finance and Economy or the local minister through the resolution of the State Council, and then the Administrator of the Office of Finance and Economy or the local minister shall transfer it to the relevant agency. Thus, in order to nationalize the forest land belonging to the State, it must be decided by the State Council pursuant to the proposal of the head of the relevant division, and it cannot be acknowledged that the forest land belonging to the State is not reverted to the State-owned, and even if the State-owned forest was not reverted to the State-owned.

2. On the ground of appeal by Defendant 2 and Defendant 1’s assistant intervenor Kim Young-young, and on the ground of appeal by Defendant 1 and 2 by Defendant 1, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry had no authority to manage the forest land reverted to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry.In full view of Article 5(2) of the first Agreement on the Finance and Property of the United States, Article 16(2) of the Government Organization Act and Article 45(2) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State Organization, after the enforcement of the Government Organization Act, the Minister of Finance and Economy’s right to manage the forest reverted to the Plaintiff is only the Minister of Finance and Economy’s right to manage the forest reverted to the Plaintiff, and the Minister’s right to engage in the sale of the forest reverted to the Plaintiff by Defendant 1 and the Intervenor’s assistant intervenor’s assistant to the Republic of Korea under this Decree has no authority to sell the forest reverted to the Plaintiff 1 and the Intervenor’s assistant to the Plaintiff on the premise that the above disposition was invalid by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry on the ground of Agriculture and Forestry’s 19.

3. Even if the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor’s ground of appeal No. 3 as to the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor’s ground of appeal is not dual possession as to the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor’s ground of appeal No. 3, as long as it is so long as the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor’s lease contract cannot be concluded by the lawful person

Therefore, the appeal of this case is without merit and is inconsistent with the original decision in part of its reasoning, but it is reasonable in the conclusion of the decision, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)