A. Whether refusal of an application for State-owned forest grant is subject to administrative litigation (negative)

(b) Application for a loan of national forest and public law relations made by the forest fraternity;

C. Whether to deprive the judgment of retirement and the constitutional right to trial

(a) Lending, selling, or transferring state-owned forest land in accordance with provisions of the Forestry Act, the former Forestry Act, or the former Forest Ordinance, is a private act that is a private economic subject and cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is taken by an administrative authority as a subject of the public authority. Therefore, the refusal disposition by the Administrator of the Korea Forest Service is merely an act under private law and is merely an act that is merely a private law and thus,

(b) Even where a forest fraternity established under the former Forestry Act files an application for gratuitous concession of State forest land, the act of refusing gratuitous concession by the defendant to such forest fraternity shall not be deemed legal relations, unlike the case of an individual or private corporation.

C. The court refused a judgment on the merits of a lawsuit which is not subject to a legal administrative litigation, and thus deprived of the right to a trial pursuant to the law under the Constitution.

(a)Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 37 and Article 41 of the former Forestry Act (Act No. 881 of Dec. 27, 1961), Article 38 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Forest Act, Article 26 of the Constitution, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Nu170 delivered on November 22, 1962, 64Da723 delivered on November 24, 1964, Supreme Court Decision 83Nu249 delivered on September 27, 1983 (Dong Branch) 83Nu431 delivered on September 27, 1983 (Dong Branch) 83Nu432 delivered on September 27, 1983 (Dong Branch)

The Socio Mono Forest System

Attorney Kim Dong-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 82Nu972 delivered on April 20, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

Under the provisions of the Forestry Act, the former Forestry Act, or the former Forestry Act, the act of lending, selling, or transferring state forest land is a private act conducted on equal terms with the other party as the subject of private economy, and it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that unilaterally exercises the public authority regardless of the other party's intent. Thus, the defendant's rejection disposition of this case by the defendant who rejected the plaintiff's application for grant of state forest land is a mere private act and not an administrative disposition. Even if the plaintiff who filed an application for grant of state forest land of this case is a public corporation established under the former Forestry Act, it is not a ground to view the defendant's refusal of gratuitous grant against the plaintiff as the exercise of public authority in superior status, unlike the case of an individual or private corporation. Accordingly, the court below's rejection of the lawsuit of this case is just and there is no violation of the law of violation of the Constitution, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the protection principle of trust and trust under the Constitution, and the court's rejection of the lawsuit which is not subject to a legal administrative litigation.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)