A. Whether permission to collect earth and stones should be granted in cases where such permission is not prohibited or restricted under Article 90-2(3) of the Forestry Act (negative);

(b) Cases where the application for permission to collect earth and rocks is not within the restricted area for permission under the same Acts and subordinate statutes, but it is reasonable to refuse

(a) Permission to collect earth and stones in forests cannot be interpreted as requiring permission on the ground that they are not in the area subject to prohibition or restriction under Article 90-2(3) of the Forestry Act, and if it is necessary for the important public interest in the preservation of national land and nature in light of the current state, geographical situation, etc. in the place of application, permission may be refused.

(b) Cases where the application for permission to collect earth and rocks is not included in the restricted area for permission under the same Acts and subordinate statutes, but it is reasonable to refuse

Article 90-2(3) of the Forestry Act, Article 91-3, Article 79 of the Enforcement Decree of the Forestry Act, Article 95(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Forestry Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Lee Jae-soo, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Han-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 91Gu415 delivered on January 22, 1992

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's assertion that the application area for the permission of quarrying in this case does not fall under the permitted restriction area under Article 90-2 of the Forestry Act, Articles 91-3 and 79 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and that the permission of the collection of earth and rocks in this case is due to the need for important public interest to prevent river pollution caused by vibration, dust dust, noise pollution and dust inflows and ensure the stability of residents from vehicles transporting earth and rocks, and that the disposition of the rejection of the collection of earth and rocks in this case is unlawful on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and that such reason cannot be a ground for

However, in light of the Forestry Act (amended by Act No. 4212 of Jan. 13, 190), Article 90-2 (1), (3), Article 91-3.2 of the same Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13052 of Jul. 14, 1990), Article 95 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry No. 1046 of Jul. 14, 1990), and Article 11 (2) of the Forestry Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 3335 of Jul. 14, 1990), the defendant's request for permission to collect earth and rocks within a forest again belongs to the prohibition or restriction area under Article 90-2 (3) of the Forestry Act, and the defendant's request for permission to collect earth and rocks within a certain distance of 10 meters away from the forest area adjacent to the forest and its neighboring facilities cannot be interpreted as it is necessary to permit.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the above evidence alone cannot be recognized as a reason for public interest and that such reason cannot be denied is due to the misunderstanding of facts in violation of the rules of evidence and the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the granting of permission to collect earth and stones, and it is clear that this affected the judgment. Therefore, the arguments pointing this out are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)