1. All appeals filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the Defendant-Counterclaim Claim filed in the trial are dismissed.

2...

The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also examined.

1. The following facts of basic facts may be acknowledged either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole by taking account of the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence of 1 to 16, 18 to 20, Eul evidence of 1, 4, and 5 (including all branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

B around March 22, 2002, around 2002, filed an application with the Defendant for permission to change the form and quality of a forest with a view to newly constructing a farm house with respect to 2,732 square meters of C forest land 46,025 square meters in Ysan-si.

Since then, on April 15, 2002, C forest land 46,025 square meters was subject to registration conversion into D forest land 46,025 square meters in Ysan-si, Ysan-si, and was divided into several parcels, such as E, F, G, H, I, and J (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. The owners of the instant forest land including the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter collectively referred to as “forest owners”) filed an application with the Defendant for permission to change the form and quality of the instant forest land from December 18, 2002 to June 26, 2003 (the term “the Mountainous Districts Management Act was enacted by Act No. 6841, Dec. 30, 2002; the term “Mountainous Districts Management Act” changed to the term “Mountainous Districts Utilization Act”) regarding expenses necessary for disaster prevention or restoration, such as the list of the Authorization and Permission Guarantee Insurance Contracts (hereinafter referred to as “the instant insurance contract”) with the Plaintiff.

C. However, even though the public official of Dosan-si did not examine whether the construction work for the forest of this case to be implemented in the forest of this case with permission for conversion of mountainous district within 500 meters from the outer boundary of the Dosan-based protection zone might affect the preservation of the Dosan-do nature in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Protection of Cultural Properties Act, etc., the defendant did not grant permission for conversion of the forest of this case from December 23, 2002 to June 26, 2003.