Whether a consultation on the diversion of the reserved forest to be used as a facility site for a school to be established falls under the "when it is intended to be used as a facility site for each school established under the provisions of the Education Act" under the former Forestry Act excluded from the payment of the alternative afforestation cost.

The approval of a school establishment plan under Article 3 of the Regulations on the Handling of School Establishment Affairs and the approval of a school facilities project execution plan under Article 14 (1) of the School Facilities Projects Promotion Act, but the exclusive consultation on the diversion of the preservation area to be used as the site of the school to be established by a corporation which has not yet obtained the approval of the establishment of a school under Article 5 of the above Rules shall be deemed to fall under the "where it is intended to be used as the site of the facilities of the school established by the provisions of the Education Act" under Article 20-2 (1) 1 of the former Forestry Act (amended by Act No. 4816 of Dec. 22, 1994), Articles 24-2 (1) 1 and 24 (1) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Forestry Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14184 of Mar. 2, 194).

Article 20-2 (1) 1 of the former Forestry Act; Article 24-2 (1) 1, and Article 24 (1) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Forestry Act; Article 19-3 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Forestry Act; Article 3, Article 5 of the Rules on the Management of Affairs concerning Establishment of Schools; Article 85 (1) of the Education Act

○ ○ Private Teaching Institutes

The Gangwon-do Governor

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu7944 delivered on August 25, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 20-2 (1) 1 of the former Forestry Act (amended by Act No. 4816, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) provides that a person who intends to use a reserved forest for other purposes after obtaining permission under the provisions of Article 18 (1) or consultation under the provisions of Article 18 (2) shall pay the alternative afforestation cost required for creating the forest to be diverted except for those who are prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 24-2 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Forestry Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14184, Mar. 2, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Decree”) provides that a person who intends to use a reserved forest for specific purposes after consultation with the Minister of the Korea Forest Service pursuant to the provisions of this Act or other Acts and who intends to use a project prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry shall be excluded from the alternative afforestation cost payment under the provisions of Article 20-2 (1) of the Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the exclusive consultation on the forest of this case, which is a preserved forest, was to be used as the facility site for the school to be established by the plaintiff without obtaining the school establishment authorization under Article 5 of the Regulations on the Establishment of Schools. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the exclusive consultation on the forest of this case does not constitute the purpose of using it as the facility site for schools established under the Education Act excluded from the object of payment of alternative afforestation expenses.

However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff has obtained the approval of the establishment of a school under Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act (No. 581 of December 26, 198) and the approval of the school facilities project implementation plan under Article 4 (1) of the School Facilities Projects Promotion Act for the purpose of using the same facilities as the site for facilities under Article 24 (1) 2 through 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act. The purpose of the provision on the other than the alternative afforestation plan under the Act on the Establishment of a School is to reduce the burden of the person who intends to divert the forest for the purpose of executing the same public projects as listed in Article 24 (1) 2 through 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the exclusive consultation on the forest of this case does not constitute the case where the use of the forest of this case as the facility site for each school established under the Education Act is intended. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation effect of the law that provides the grounds for exclusion from the payment of alternative afforestation expenses, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the appeal

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)