[2] In a case where a certain forest is assessed under a certain administrative district, the case holding that a natural village, consisting only of residents living in part of the administrative district, cannot be deemed to have been assessed

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The court below, after compiling the adopted evidence, found the facts as stated in its reasoning, and determined that although the village in Korea, which was shown in its recognized facts, was combined with the Handong Village at the time of the situation of the land in this case, it was reasonable to view the land in this case as the same organization as the plaintiff, not a separate group of residents, in view of the following: (a) although the two natural village existed separately from the land in Korea; (b) the geographical location of the plaintiff and Handong Village; (c) the status of the use of the land mainly used and managed as the common cemetery of the members in Korea; and (d) the ownership awareness of the village in Korea and the Handong Village in Korea as to the land in this case, it was reasonable to view that the land in this case was in the name of the "Korea," which seems to include the plaintiff and Handong Village in Korea; (b)

B. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

If any forest land was under the name of Dong/ri under the Forest Survey Ordinance, it shall be deemed that the Dong/ri does not merely refer to the administrative district, unless there are special circumstances, but it refers to the community using the same name as the administrative district as an unincorporated association consisting of residents within the administrative district (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60871, Jan. 31, 2008, etc.). According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the land of this case was changed to the "Nari" in accordance with the implementation of the Ri Ri Ri (189, Jun. 1, 1915, and the land of this case was under the name of " Hanriri (ri)" consisting of residents living within the administrative district of this case not only within the administrative district of this case, but also within the administrative district of this case, unless there are special circumstances as to the land of this case.

However, even according to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff is a natural village consisting of only a part of the village within Korea, which is an administrative district, and the situation of the land of this case is not a community consisting of all the residents within Korea, but a natural village consisting of only a part of the residents within Korea, which is a part of Korea, and is an organization identical with the plaintiff as a non-corporate group with the ability to exercise rights, at the time of the situation of the land of this case, it should be proved that the land of this case exists as a non-corporate group with a certain degree of organic organization at the time of the situation of the land of this case, and prior to the situation, the process and contents of the land of this case are owned by the plaintiff, and it should be recognized whether some of the residents of Dong and Ri could have the land under the name of Dong and Ri, which is a local community, and whether the land of this case could be assessed

Nevertheless, the court below determined, solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning, that the "Korea-do," the name of the circumstance, was the same as the Plaintiff in the substance. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the land situation of the residents community, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The appeal pointing this out has merit.

Furthermore, according to the records, the plaintiff is aware of the fact that the head of the household who owns a house in Korea is a person who actually resides in Korea for not less than 3 years (Evidence A7). It also points out that it is not clear whether the plaintiff is a natural village with all the residents living in Korea.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's defense of the acquisition of prescription period on the ground that the evidence of the judgment alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant possessed the land of this case and there is no other sufficient evidence to acknowledge it. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of

The decision of the Supreme Court cited in the ground of appeal by the defendant is inappropriate to be invoked in this case, unlike this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)