1. On January 11, 2018, the Defendant: (a) on January 11, 201, on a 1,362 square meters out of 13,587 square meters in Seowon-si, Changwon-gu, Seowon-si, Seowon-si, Seowon-si, Seo

1. Details of ruling;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 1,362 square meters of woodland (hereinafter “instant forest”) among 13,587 square meters of woodland 18, 13,587 square meters in Seongdong-gu, Seowon-si, Changwon-si, Seowon-si. The instant forest is a preserved state forest under Article 16(1)1 of the Act on the Management and Administration of State Forests (hereinafter “State Forest Act”).

B. The Korea Rail Network Authority (hereinafter referred to as “project implementer”) has prepared and approved the implementation plan for a railroad construction project pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Railroad Construction Act in order to implement a project for construction of light cables (hereinafter “instant project”). The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs announced the implementation plan for a railroad construction project on May 20, 2015 as announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs under Article 2015-314, pursuant to Article 9(4) of the same Act.

C. The project implementer consulted with the Plaintiff to use the forest of this case incorporated in the instant project, but did not reach an agreement, filed an application for a decision on use with the Defendant.

On January 11, 2018, the Defendant rendered a ruling that “the project implementer shall use the instant forest for the instant project, and the amount of compensation for losses shall be KRW 24,510,00. The starting date of use shall be February 28, 2018, and the period of use shall be from the starting date of use to the ending date of the facility.”

(hereinafter “instant adjudication”) e.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant judgment and filed an objection with the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a ruling dismissing the objection on August 23, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-4, the entire purport of the pleading

2. Whether the ruling of this case is legitimate;

A. In full view of the provisions of Article 11 of the State Property Act, Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Articles 17 and 21 of the State Forest Act, private rights to the instant forest, which is a preserved state forest, cannot be established. However, the use of the instant forest can only be paid each year with permission for use.

Therefore, the procedures and methods of permission for use under the State Forest Act are not followed.