[1] Whether the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act as a matter of course apply to the adjudication of small claims, provided that only "a case affecting the judgment" becomes a legitimate ground for appeal (affirmative)

[2] Where land category is a forest land category on the land surface, but it cannot be deemed as a rock site, etc. in a mountainous district in light of the surrounding surrounding conditions, whether it constitutes a " mountainous district" under the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, etc. (negative)

[1] Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, Article 423 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 2 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act and Article 2 of the Forestry Act (repealed by Act No. 7678 of August 4, 2005) (see Article 2 of the current Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act)

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 77Da1137 delivered on September 28, 197 (Gong1977, 10313) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 88Do668 delivered on December 13, 198 (Gong1989, 124) Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4360 Delivered on September 14, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1018 Delivered on July 10, 2008

Plaintiff

Gangnam-si

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2008Na2064 Decided January 2, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides for a special provision on the part of the violation of the Constitution, Acts, subordinate statutes, orders, rules, or rules under Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, or on the part of a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents. However, the provision of the Civil Procedure Act, provided that the judgment affects the conclusion of the judgment, shall apply to the trial of small claims under Article 423 of the Civil Procedure Act, provided that the definition of all or part of the provisions applicable to a specific case is inconsistent with the judgment of the Supreme Court, or the application of the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in the relevant case under the premise of the above-mentioned interpretation (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Da6979, 6986, May 13, 2004).

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court dismissed the instant claim on the ground that it was justifiable for the Defendant to impose expenses incurred in creating forest replacement resources, etc. on the Plaintiff on the ground that the present condition of the instant land does not fall under mountainous districts, and thus, sought restitution of unjust enrichment upon the Plaintiff’s refusal. As to the instant claim, the lower court did not constitute “temporary loss of standing timber and bamboo,” but did not constitute “land collectively brought about,” and even if the Plaintiff lost the present condition and function as a forest by storing waste aggregates, it should be subject to restitution in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Mountainous Districts Management Act, or permission for conversion of mountainous district should be granted on condition of payment of expenses incurred in creating forest replacement resources.

However, whether a mountainous district or forest is subject to the application of the "Mountainous Districts Management Act" or the "Forest Act" should be determined according to the actual state of the relevant land regardless of its land category in the public register. If the land category on the land cadastre is a forest and forest, even if the land category becomes a forest, the state of loss as a mountainous district cannot be deemed temporary, and if it cannot be deemed that the land is located in a mountainous district in light of neighboring surrounding phenomena, it does not constitute a mountainous district under the "Mountainous Districts Management Act, etc." (see Supreme Court Decisions 88Do668, Dec. 13, 198; 2006Do4360, Sept. 14, 2006; 2007Do1018, Jul. 10, 2008; and the above judgment of the court below cannot be viewed as a case of seeking a return of substitute resource development expenses under the premise that the plaintiff's claim for the imposition of this case can not be seen as an unlawful ground.

Therefore, insofar as the above illegality existing in the judgment of the court below, which is a small claim, does not affect the result of the judgment of the court below, the ground of appeal of this case does not constitute the grounds of appeal under Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, and thus, cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

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 on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)