1. On February 9, 2017, the Defendant rendered a ruling on the use of real estate listed in the attached Table 1, as against the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff (the Seoul State Forest Administration Office) is the owner of five parcels of forest land listed in attached Table 1, which are permanent state forests under Article 16(1)1 of the former State Forest Administration and Management Act (amended by Act No. 14357, Dec. 2, 2016; hereinafter “State Forest Act”).

The Korea Rail Network Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Rail Network Authority") prepared and approved a railroad construction project implementation plan pursuant to Article 9 (1) of the Railroad Construction Act in order to implement the project in the instant case, and the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport announced the implementation plan on August 3, 2015 by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 2015-551, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport announced pursuant to Article 9 (4) of the Railroad Construction Act.

The Korea Rail Network Authority consulted with the Minister of the Korea Forest Service in order to use the forest of this case as a railroad tunnel site, but did not reach an agreement, applied for a ruling of use to the defendant.

On February 9, 2017, the Defendant rendered a ruling that “Korea Rail Network Authority shall use the instant forest for the instant project, and the compensation for losses shall be KRW 8,529,710. The starting date of use shall be April 4, 2017, and the period of use shall be from the starting date of use to the ending date of the facility.”

(hereinafter “instant adjudication.” The Plaintiff raised an objection against the instant adjudication, but the Defendant dismissed the objection on August 24, 2017.

[The ground for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the branch numbers in the case of additional numbers), the fact-finding with the Korea Rail Network Authority of this Court, and the plaintiff's decision on this case's assertion as to the legitimacy of the entire purport of the pleadings is unlawful as it permits the establishment of private rights to the forest of this case, which is administrative property, against the State Forest Act and the State Property Act, and the decision on the use of permanent state forests is land for the Railroad Construction Act and public works.