logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.05.23 2013구합28268
입목벌채불허가처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 11, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a written application for permission to cut standing trees (attached to a plan to cut standing trees) with the effect that “620 weeks, such as pine trees, dye trees, and dye trees, etc., which were raised in Jongno-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”) are cut without any remaining quantity, and “within 1 cm in diameter, such as pine trees, fye trees, and fye trees, etc., and 450 weeks in 30cm to 50cm in fye trees, etc.” (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On June 17, 2013, the Defendant: (a) in violation of the purport of the enactment of the Forest Resources Creation and Management Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Forest Resources Act”) by which an application for permission for felling standing timber satisfies the requirements under Article 58 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 11922, Jul. 16, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the “National Land Planning Act”); (b) on the ground that the application for permission for cutting standing timber satisfies the requirements for permission under Article 24 of the “Building and Management of Forest Resources Act” (amended by Ordinance No. 5376, Nov. 1, 2012; hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance”); and (c) on the ground that the purpose and object of felling standing timber are not adequate; and (d) it may not be subject to the instant disposition on the ground that the “local level of felling timber is damaged” (hereinafter referred to as “local level 1”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7, 9, 10 (including virtual number), Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition is unlawful in light of the following circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff.

(1) Pursuant to Article 67(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records (hereinafter “Cadastral”), the land category of the instant case shall be as follows.

arrow