[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gong1994Sang, 998, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

2. For the plaintiffs:

A. The defendant Namju-gun completed the Jeju District Court No. 14356 of Oct. 21, 1976 with respect to the forest land of 307,636 square meters in Seopo-dong, Seopo-dong, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si;

B. Defendant Seopo-si shall implement each procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by the Jeju District Court No. 8757 of April 19, 1982 with respect to the same real estate.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in both the first and second instances.

The same shall apply to the order.

As to the lawsuit in this case, under the premise that the plaintiff's ownership was owned by the land owner in the name of 123,636 square meters in Seopo-dong, Seopo-si, Seopo-si (hereinafter "the forest in this case"), the forest in this case was owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant Seopo-si, which sought implementation of the procedure for registration of preservation of ownership and cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant, under the premise that the land was owned by the general owner of the plaintiff. However, the defendant Seopo-si, Seopo-si, the forest in this case was owned by his own, but the defendant Seopo-si filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration against the defendant Nam-gun, asserting that the forest in this case was trusted in the name of 1976 in the same name as the forest in this case, and was ruled against the judgment of the court below. The defendant Seopo-si, which is a non-corporate body consisting of residents of Jeonpo-dong, and the plaintiff's village also should be dismissed because it again files the same lawsuit as the same object as the above plant in this case.

Therefore, considering the whole purport of the pleadings, Gap evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 12, Eul evidence No. 6 (each judgment), Eul evidence No. 1-1, Eul evidence No. 5-1, Eul evidence No. 5-1, and Eul evidence No. 2 through 4 (each of the above preparatory documents) and the testimony of both witnesses of the first instance trial, the above planting Forest Association is its own possession of the forest land of this case around July 10, 1976, but it filed a lawsuit for the registration of ownership transfer with the Jeju District Court No. 76Gam165 on the premise that the above tree No. 1 is the original state of the forest of this case, and it cannot be acknowledged that the forest of this case was a new forest of this case and the new forest of this case's objection No. 71 and new forest of this case's objection No. 785 on the premise that the above tree No. 1 and new forest of this case's association had no title trust with the above tree No. 1678 and new forest of this case's appeal.

2. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2 (each land cadastre), Eul evidence No. 3 (each land register), Gap evidence No. 4, Gap evidence No. 5, Gap evidence No. 6 (each other group registration certificate), Gap evidence No. 7, Gap evidence No. 8 (each community council's articles of association), Gap evidence No. 9 (each community council's articles of association), Gap evidence No. 10 (Measures against Military Property Unauthorized Occupancy), Gap evidence No. 10 (Measures against Military Property Unauthorized Occupancy), Gap evidence No. 11, Gap evidence No. 12 (each judgment), Eul evidence No. 2 (Collection of Free Property), Eul evidence No. 3 (No evidence No. 4) and other evidence No. 4 (No evidence No. 6).

A. From the Joseon Dynasty to the point of view, residents of the same law were in existence as natural village from the Joseon Dynasty to the point of view from around July 1915, with the aim of gathering the power of the commercial law residents for the common convenience and welfare of their residents and jointly processing the village work with the aim of achieving their goals, and entrusting them with the business of acquiring, operating, and managing the common property in order to achieve their goals. The head of the household who resides in the commercial law shall be the head of the household, and the head of the household who externally represents the head of the household, and the decision-making process is formed by the general assembly composed of the head of the household with the attendance of a majority of the members and with the consent of a majority of the members present, and owned the property under his name while using the name of the Ri for convenience. The forest of this case also was one of the real estate owned by the same residents, which was used for the common convenience and welfare of the residents.

나. 상효리 주민들은 그 공동체의 재산을 관리·사용하여 오면서 이 사건 임야에도 참나무와 대나무 등을 식재하고 가시덩쿨 등을 제거하며 우마용 꼴을 채취하고 산불방지 등을 위한 순찰활동도 하여 오면서 관리·사용하여 왔다.

C. After that, from around July 1946, the above portrait was divided into one sheet and two sheet, and each sheet was selected and appointed as the representative, and from July 1981, the above portrait was changed into the same one village circuit, the same two sheet, and the same two sheet.

D. Meanwhile, the forest of this case was unregistered without being recorded only in the forestry register after the land survey project was conducted, and the forest of this case was treated as reverting to the rights of the non-party Nam-gun under the Act on the Provisional Measures for Local Autonomy, which was enforced on October 1, 1961 (Act No. 707 of September 1, 1961). The registration of preservation of ownership was completed on October 21, 1976 in the name of the defendant Nam-gun-gun, and on April 19, 1982, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 23, 1981 in the name of the defendant Seopo-si on April 19, 1981.

3. Determination

According to the above facts, the village association of the plaintiffs is an organization formed for the welfare of the whole of the ordinary citizens, and it constitutes a so-called unincorporated association in light of its members, operating method, acquisition and management of property, institution, and property ownership relation. In light of the nature of the plaintiffs' village association, it is the same legal entity in various aspects, such as the "windivity" and the purpose, composition, operation method, ownership relation of property, etc. of the residents who were affected by the owners in the initial land research process, and the ownership transfer registration of the above village association should be owned jointly by the residents of the above non-legal entity, and if the residents in the administrative district of Ri constitute a community composed of the residents for the common interest and joint welfare of the residents, and own the property under the name of Ri, which is an administrative district, under the name of the residents of the above non-legal entity, and even if the Ri, which is the administrative district, belongs to the joint ownership of the Ri residents, the ownership transfer registration of the above forest and land should not be owned jointly by the residents of the above defendant village.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants shall be accepted on the grounds of their reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, so it is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition by ordering each registration of preservation of ownership and cancellation of transfer of ownership as stated in Paragraph 2 of this Article.

Judges Kim Jong-ok (Presiding Judge)