This judgment concerned the revocation of the permission to develop forestry land and the standing to sue of the inhabitants around the area. The development in question aimed at the construction of a golf course on 1,171,044 hectares of development area. A part of the appellees lived around 100 metres downstream of the proposed development area. Another part of the appellees owned trees or did farming in the proposed development area or on the adjacent land. They sought revocation of the permission for development granted by the appellant.
The Supreme Court emphasized that in light of the functions of the forests in preventing natural disasters and floods, maintaining the water resources, and protecting the environment, there was a possibility that by the given act of development, an outflow of land, a collapse of land, other natural disasters, or flood would occur, or there could be serious difficulties in securing water resources or a significant deterioration of the environment in the adjacent areas. Therefore, in light of the meaning and purpose of the Forestry Law, those who lived or had property in the adjacent area where there was a possibility of suffering from the above mentioned difficulties as a result of the development, had a standing to claim for the revocation of the permission for the development.
However, those appellees who merely owned trees in the proposed development area or on the adjacent land or merely farmed the land by using the water of the river did not have standing to claim for the revocation of the permission for the development.