(a) Validity of the decision of the Investigation Committee on State Property to transfer management of State forests;

(b) Validity of a disposition for sale by a Director-General who is not the managing authority for national forest;

Since the state-owned non-permanent forest has the right to manage and dispose of it, even if it was transferred to the Minister of Finance and Economy in accordance with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry's instruction angle, the effect of the management

Article 34 of the Forestry Act

Korea

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 65Na394 delivered on June 16, 1967, Busan High Court Decision 65Na394 delivered on July 16, 1967

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

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff performer

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, this case was originally a state forest under Article 33 (1) 2 of the Forestry Act, and since it was recognized as property subject to disposal in the National Land Survey Committee established by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (No. 1962 March 21, 1962) and transferred it to the Minister of Finance and Economy on August 13, 1962. The Minister of Finance and Economy, from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry on August 22, 1962, requested the Minister to return to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry as it is not in the nature of disposal, since the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry's request for restoration to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on the 28th of the same month, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry's request for disposal from the Do governor, which was the custody authority of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry's order to exclude the above disposal of the forest from the acquisition of the Do governor, which is the custody authority of the Do governor, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, as well-owned from the above.

However, the State Property Act shall apply to the administration and disposal of state property, but it shall be given priority to the provisions of other Acts (Article 2 of the Forestry Act). According to Article 34 (1) of the same Act, with respect to state forest land, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry shall manage or dispose of it except for administrative property, and according to the judgment of the original court, it shall be deemed that the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry has the right to manage and dispose of the forest land, and even if the Commission determines that the forest land was disposed of by the State Property Investigation Committee organized pursuant to subparagraph 13 of Article 13 of the above letter of instruction, it shall be deemed that the decision itself has only the effect of ordering the Office of Agriculture and Forestry to take measures to sell it, and it shall not be deemed that the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry has changed from the Office of Agriculture and Forestry to the Minister of Finance and Economy, and it shall not be deemed that the transfer of the forest land to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry pursuant to Article 2 of the Forestry Act does not fall under the premise of the transfer of the forest.

In addition, even if the Civil Code is applied to the disposal of state property which is miscellaneous property, the restrictions on various disposals provided for in the State Property Act and other special Acts are not merely an order to an administrative agency, but also a special law under the Civil Code. Therefore, the disposal of forest land in violation of this Act is legally null and void. As seen above, the management agency of forest land in violation of this Act is the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry at the time of such disposal, and the management and disposal rights are only held by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Thus, the disposal of the original disposal by the Minister of Finance and Economy without authority is legally null and void as it violates the State Property Act and the Forestry Act, and it is unlawful that the original disposal is valid as seen above.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu