The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The court below recognized the fact that the real estate in this case was originally owned by 37 persons, such as the supplementary intervenor, etc., was cultivated on the basis that 37 persons, such as the supplementary intervenor, etc., were entitled to the annual interest rate under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the Property Belonging to the case on the premise that the supplementary intervenor, etc., were entitled to the annual interest rate under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the case where 37 persons, etc., such as the supplementary intervenor, etc., were in possession of the land in this case, after August 15, 198, the Leewon-won, a person among the supplementary intervenors, had been in charge of managing the property in the forest examination site from the spring of spring of 1946, and the supplementary intervenor, etc. paid the small amount of the rent for each possession to the above examination site and actually cultivated the land.

The term "legal relative" as stated in Article 15 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Legal Representative" means a person who has acquired a legitimate right through appropriate procedures with a competent authority, regardless of whether the property devolving upon legal authority continues to be managed by the competent authority before the date of the disaster, even if the state has occupied the property devolving upon the contract or approval with a competent authority, so long as the state authority does not have the authority to dispose of the property devolving upon the State, the fact alone cannot be viewed as a legitimate relative. However, in this case, it is evident that the head of Chungcheongnam-do Forestry Examination Office has increased the usage fee of the forest land from the date of the disaster, as recognized by the court below, so long as the auxiliary intervenor did not have the right to dispose of the property devolving upon the State, it cannot be deemed that the auxiliary intervenor has the right to have the annual right to dispose of the property devolving upon the State, even if he did not have the right to dispose of the property devolving upon the State.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is not examined or it is not unlawful for the reason that the plaintiff's claim was made. It is clear that the court below made a wrong judgment by interpreting the right of annual appeal as stated in the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, and it is clear that the land was cultivated as farmland from any time to any time, and it is clear that this original state among the supplementary participants would have managed the land since August 15, 200.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench in order to reverse the original judgment and to have the original judgment rendered a new trial.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-won Na-won