[1] Whether there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of permission for gathering earth and sand from neighboring residents in the area where permission for gathering earth and sand is granted (affirmative)

[2] Whether permission for gathering earth and sand within a forest for which the statutory restriction on gathering of earth and sand is not limited may be refused on the ground that such permission is necessary for important public interests, such as the maintenance of the national land and nature and the preservation of the environment (affirmative)

[1] Article 90-6 of the former Forestry Act (amended by Act No. 6841 of Dec. 30, 2002) (see current Article 25 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act), Article 3 of the Addenda to the Mountainous Districts Management Act (amended by Act No. 6841 of Dec. 30, 2002), Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 90-6 of the former Forestry Act (amended by Act No. 6841 of Dec. 30, 2002) (see current Article 25 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1454 delivered on September 26, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3538), Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1240 Delivered on April 25, 2003 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2745 Delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 1474 delivered on November 10, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 121) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu5489 Delivered on August 12, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2310)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

[Judgment of the court below]

Manyang Market

Daesan Public Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Geum River, Attorneys Kim Won-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2004Nu3472 delivered on July 15, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, while the remainder is assessed against the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the defendant assistant intervenor are also examined.

1. Regarding standing to sue

Even a third party, who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, has a legal interest in seeking cancellation of the administrative disposition, standing to sue is recognized. The legal interest here refers to a case where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the pertinent disposition. However, it does not include cases where there is an indirect, factual, economic, or interest, such as an abstract, average, and general interest commonly held by the general public as a result of the protection of public interest. The purport of the former Forestry Act (amended by Act No. 6841 of Dec. 30, 2002) and its Enforcement Decree, and its Enforcement Rules is not only to protect the public interest related thereto by promoting the protection and development of forests, the improvement of forestry productivity, and the enhancement of public interests of forests, but also to protect the individual interest in which residents of neighboring areas can maintain their residential and living environment, such as permission for gathering soil and sand, and thus, it is not directly and indirectly protected by the above abstract, average, and general interest protected by the Supreme Court Decision No. 29042, Apr. 25, 2019.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that there is a legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case against neighboring residents and inspectors of the land where permission for gathering earth and sand of this case was granted, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as

2. As to the serious infringement of public interest

Since the gathering of earth and sand in forests directly affect the maintenance of national land and nature and the preservation of environment, the permitting agency may refuse to grant permission when it deems necessary for important public interests, such as the maintenance of national land and nature, and the preservation of environment, considering the shape and location of the land subject to an application for permission for the gathering of earth and sand, and the surrounding conditions, etc., even though such area does not fall under the restricted area for gathering earth and sand as prescribed by statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu5489 delivered on August 12, 1994, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and records, in light of the location and shape of the land where the gathering of earth and sand in this case was permitted, surrounding circumstances, standing timber, and the circumstances and contents of the disposition in this case which permitted the gathering of earth and sand by the defendant's assistant intervenor, the disposition in this case is justified in holding that the disposition in this case is unlawful as it infringes on important public interest, such as the maintenance of national land and nature, and preservation of environment, and there

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. 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 Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)