beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
가. 원고 B은 2014. 1. 14. 피고에게 “서울 종로구 C(이하 ‘이 사건 1토지’라 한다)에서 생육 중인 ‘소나무, 리기다소나무, 참나무, 벚나무 등 21주’를 모두 벌채하고, ‘소나무, 단풍나무, 편백나무 등 직경 1cm 이내, 수고 30cm 내지 50cm의 묘�’을 심겠다.”는 내용의 입목벌채허가신청서(조경수 재배 계획서 첨부)를 제출하였고, 원고 A는 2014. 1. 22. 피고에게 “서울 종로구 D(이하 ‘이 사건 2토지’라 하고, 이 사건 1토지와 합쳐서 ‘이 사건 각 토지’라 한다)에서 생육 중인 ‘소나무, 리기다소나무, 참나무 등 41주’를 모두 벌채하고, ‘소나무, 단풍나무, 편백나무 등 직경 1cm 이내, 수고 30cm 내지 50cm의 묘� 210주’를 심겠다.”는 내용의 입목벌채허가신청서(조경수 재배 계획서 첨부)를 제출하였다.
B. On January 17, 2014, the Defendant violated 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 criteria for permission under the provisions of Article 24 of the “Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance” (amended by Ordinance No. 5376, Nov. 1, 2012; hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance”), and the purpose and subject of felling is not appropriate. Moreover, felling standing timber may be rejected on the ground that the purpose and subject of felling violates the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Article 58 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter referred to as the “National Land Planning Act”), Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter referred to as the “National Land Planning Act”), and Article 24 of the “Municipal Ordinance” (hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance”).