Whether lending or gratuitous concession of state forests is subject to administrative litigation (negative)

Lending or gratuitous concession of state-owned miscellaneous property is a juristic act conducted as a private economic entity and is an administrative act conducted in a superior position with public authority, so it is not subject to administrative litigation.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 75 of the Forestry Act, Article 4 (3) of the Addenda to the Forestry Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Nu113 delivered on August 24, 1965, 83Nu251 delivered on August 23, 1983

An indoor luminous Forest System

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

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu937 delivered on April 7, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

An administrative agency does not engage in a specific legal act against a citizen as a superior holder of the public authority, and merely a legal act conducted as a private economic entity must be governed by the general private law, and it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that has the effect of the public law. According to the judgment below, in receiving from the competent branch office of June 9, 1959 a loan for afforestation of the non-permanent state forest of this case, the plaintiff decided to transfer this case to the plaintiff without compensation if the plaintiff succeeded in the afforestation. Since the plaintiff requested the defendant on June 9, 1982 for the afforestation and applied for an gratuitous concession of the forest land of this case, the decision of the court below regarding the plaintiff's assertion that the state property management agency's lending or gratuitous concession of state-owned property is not a legal act conducted as a private economic entity, and it is not an administrative act with the superior status of the public authority, and thus, it cannot be seen as an administrative act to be subject to administrative litigation. Thus, even if the theory of related legal relations of the Forestry Act that points out, it cannot be justified with the plaintiff's and local governments's own legal relationship as above.

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

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)