1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a report on the occupation and use of state forests without permission pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Management and Operation of State Forests (No. 13252, Mar. 27, 2015) on the ground that he/she occupied the forest land B, Gangwon-do Crossing-gun (hereinafter “instant forest”) for at least ten years as the temple site, on the ground that he/she occupied the forest land for at least ten years.

B. On February 27, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s “report on the occupation and use of state forests without permission” (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that C’s heir and universal successor are only entitled to “report on the occupation and use of state forests without permission,” and the Plaintiff is not entitled to file a report, and thus, the instant forest cannot be carried out contradictory administrative acts due to the issuance of a restoration order.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff alleged the non-existence of the grounds for disposition is a person who was the nurse of C on August 5, 1995, and C around 200, D company (the name before the modification: E company; hereinafter "the inspection of this case") in the forest of this case.

At the time of building B, the instant temple was newly built with the Plaintiff’s property and effort, and thereafter, C had resided in the instant temple and performed duties necessary for the operation and management of the inspection. Therefore, the Plaintiff is the occupant who occupied the instant inspection for at least ten years.

Even if the Plaintiff’s possession is not recognized, the Plaintiff was donated all of the instant temple and its affiliated buildings from C on October 15, 2015, and thus, the Plaintiff is a possessor who has occupied the instant temple for more than 10 years by aggregating C’s possession and the Plaintiff’s possession period as the successor of possession.

In light of the content and purport of the instant provision.