[1] In a case where it is deemed necessary for the important public interest, even though it does not constitute an area subject to prohibition or restriction of forest damage, whether the application for permission for permission of forest damage may be rejected without a legal basis (affirmative

[2] The case holding that an administrative agency's rejection of an application for approval of factory construction does not constitute a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority on the grounds that the alteration of form and quality of a factory that entails a change of forest form and quality is contrary to the important

[1] Since forest damage directly affects the preservation of national land and nature and the preservation of the environment, such as water quality, etc., even if it does not correspond to the prohibited or restricted areas as well as the cases falling under the prohibited or restricted areas, the permitting agency may refuse to grant permission when it is deemed necessary for important public interests, such as the maintenance of national land and nature, preservation of environment, etc. in light of the current state, location, surrounding circumstances, etc. of the land subject to the application for permission for forest damage, and in such a case,

[2] The case holding that an administrative agency's rejection of an application for approval of factory construction does not constitute a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority on the grounds that the alteration of form and quality of a factory that entails a change in the form and quality of a forest is contrary to

[1] Article 90 (1) and (8) of the Forestry Act, Article 91-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Forestry Act, Article 88 of the Enforcement Rule of the Forestry Act / [2] Articles 13 and 13-2 (1) 2 of the former Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act (amended by Act No. 6841 of Dec. 30, 2002), Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu4854 delivered on May 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1914), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6113 delivered on September 15, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3429), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu15213 delivered on August 29, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 2926), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1228 delivered on September 12, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 3151), Supreme Court Decision 9Du666 delivered on July 7, 200 (Gong200Ha, 189), Supreme Court Decision 200Du26829 delivered on October 25, 2002)

[Defendant-Appellee]

Pyeongtaek-si grounds

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu1542 delivered on October 17, 2002

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In cases where an administrative agency approves the establishment of a factory pursuant to Article 13 of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act, the matters consulted with the head of the relevant administrative agency regarding the permission to change the form and quality of the forest which is the site for the relevant factory and access road pursuant to Article 13-2 (1) 2 of the same Act shall be deemed to have obtained the permission to change the form and quality of the forest. Meanwhile, since forest damage directly affects the preservation of the environment, such as the maintenance of national land and nature, water quality, etc., as well as the areas subject to prohibition or restriction as provided in statutes, even if it does not fall under prohibited or restricted areas, the permitting agency may refuse the permission if it is deemed necessary for important public interests, such as the maintenance of national land and nature, preservation of environment, etc. in consideration of the current state, location, surrounding circumstances, etc. of the land subject to the permission to change the form and quality of the forest, and in such a case, it may issue a disposition of refusal without express grounds under the statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Du666, Jul. 7, 20002>

After finding facts based on the evidence, the court below acknowledged the following facts. Although the forest of this case was not designated and publicly announced as a restricted site for changing the form and quality of the forest under the provisions of Article 91-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Forestry Act, the forest of this case was composed of mixed effication and effication in the area where the forest of this case is located, and it seems necessary to change the form and quality of the forest of this case as well as to create the factory site like the plaintiff's application. The forest of this case plays an important role in providing the natural environment of the people who reside in the neighboring residential area as well as neighboring residential area with the natural park of 4-lane road, and it seems that there is no need for the permission of changing the form and quality of the forest of this case to preserve the natural landscape of the forest of this case as its original condition, and there is no need for the permission of changing the form and quality of the forest of this case to permit the use of the forest of this case as well as the forest of this case to use the forest of this case to maintain the land and natural environment.

In general, in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of protecting trust to the acts of administrative agencies, first, the administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the object of trust to the individual, second, the administrative agency should have no reason attributable to the individual when the statement of opinion is well-grounded, third, the individual should have trusted the name of opinion and have committed any act corresponding thereto, third, the administrative agency should have made a disposition contrary to the above opinion statement, and fourth, the administrative agency should have made a disposition contrary to the above opinion statement, thereby infringing on the interests of the individual who trusted the opinion statement. Lastly, when taking an administrative disposition in accordance with the above opinion statement, it should not be likely to seriously undermine the public interest or the legitimate interests of a third party. Accordingly, there is no evidence that the court below did not apply the principle of protecting trust to the same purport, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of protecting trust and trust as otherwise alleged in the ground for appeal.

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

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)