In an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition on the grounds of its illegality, the case where the burden of proof on the legitimacy of such administrative disposition is deemed to exist in the defendant administrative office.

In a lawsuit seeking cancellation of permission for the reclamation of national forest, the burden of proving that the undeveloped land subject to permission for the reclamation of small land is forming a group of undeveloped land is an administrative agency that has granted permission for the reclamation on the ground that it forms a group of land.

Article 28-2 of the Land Clearing Promotion Act (Closure)

Plaintiff

Do Governor of Gyeonggi-do;

Daegu High Court Decision 64Gu61 delivered on April 13, 1965

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1-2

Under Article 28-2 of the Land Clearing Promotion Act, the court below held that, in a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the permission for the reclamation of the land scheduled for the case, the plaintiff is not obligated to bear the burden of proving that, as a single complex, the land planned for the reclamation (the land planned for the reclamation) must be less than 30 information, the land planned for the reclamation (the land planned for the reclamation) must be less than 30 information, and if the land (the forest) is excluded from the list (1) forest permitted for the plaintiff, the above (2) (3) cannot be a complex. However, there is no other evidence to prove that the above argument of the plaintiff cannot be accepted, and there is no other evidence to prove that the above argument of the plaintiff cannot be accepted, the land planned for the reclamation is nothing more than (2) (3) of the land planned for the reclamation, and thus, the land planned for the reclamation cannot be the land planned for the reclamation.

However, the defendant administrative agency that has granted permission for the reclamation of land on the ground that the burden of proving that the undeveloped land is forming a group of undeveloped land subject to the permission for the reclamation under the Farmland Reclamation Promotion Act is established. As such, the above judgment of the original court is erroneous in matters of law by misunderstanding the burden of proof in the administrative litigation of this case, which is at issue as to whether the land is reclaimed or not, and the errors in this law may affect the result of the original judgment. Therefore, the appeal on this point is reasonable and without requiring the judgment on other points, the original judgment shall not be reversed.

Therefore, according to Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Articles 400 and 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)