(b) The case holding that it is reasonable to deem that the cadastral record, etc. was kept at the time of registration for preservation, in case where registration of preservation of ownership has been made for forest land at the time of enforcement

(c) The effect of double-registration of ownership preservation made on the same real estate in the name of the holder;

(d) Where the estimated capacity of registration of initial ownership is broken;

B. The case holding that, under Articles 105 and 107 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, which was applied at the time when a registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of a forest land Gap, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the forest land Gap was stipulated to be accompanied by a certified copy of the land cadastre or a judgment with the verification of the applicant's ownership in the registration of unregistered ownership of the forest land, and thus, it is reasonable to presume that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Gap was lawfully processed by the registration public official (where it is not deemed that the registration was completed with a judgment) and there is no special evidence, such as that a certified copy of the attached forest register is forged, the competent authority has kept the forest register, and in addition, in order to divide a specific forest, it is reasonable to deem that there was a forestry map for the forest land concerned, barring any special circumstance.

C. Where a registration of preservation of ownership has been made in duplicate on the same forest and field, the registration of preservation of ownership should be deemed null and void unless the registration of preservation of ownership first made is null and void.

(d) The presumption of registration of preservation of ownership is broken if it is found that a person other than the holder of the title to the registration of preservation has received an assessment of the relevant land;

The case shall be remanded to the Suwon District Court Panel Division.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 6's non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 4's non-party 9's non-party 4's non-party 4's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 6's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 9'

2. (A) Unless special circumstances exist, it is presumed that registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Nonparty 2 has been duly made in the cause and procedure (Supreme Court Decision 4290No251, 252 Decided October 21, 1957; Supreme Court Decision 69Da311 Decided May 13, 1969; Supreme Court Decision 93Da37298, 37304 Decided February 25, 1994). Meanwhile, in the forestry map where the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Nonparty 2 was made on November 30, 1956, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the forest area should be deemed to have been duly attached to the forest map, and as there is no special circumstance to deem that the registration of preservation of ownership in the forest area would have been made in the forest map under the name of the applicant for the registration of ownership in accordance with Articles 105 and 107 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, it should be deemed that there was no special circumstance to have existed the registration of preservation of ownership in the forest area.

Meanwhile, according to Article 16(1) of the former Cadastral Act (Act No. 165 of Dec. 1, 1950), Article 16(3) of the same Act provides that "the parcel number of each land shall be determined by attaching a code to the parcel number before partitioning, with respect to the land partitioned," and Article 16(3) of the same Act provides that "if there are special circumstances, the parcel number of the land may be determined, notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs, if the forest land within the main number is subdivided, the number of the land may be determined by dividing it under the above provision, barring any special circumstances, it can be known that the main number was attached to "1" and "2-2" after the main number and the main number was closed, and the method of setting such subdivision and parcel number was identical from the date after May 1, 1918 when the Decree on the Investigation of Forestry enters into force until December 1, 195). Thus, it is evident that the forest land in this case was partitioned and (3) at the latest.

(B) According to the forestry map on April 14, 1918 (1), the forest land map of this case contains ① 1, 15 m2, ② the closed forest map (17 m2) prepared on the basis of the above forest land map on April 15, 1967, ③ the re-preparationd on June 10, 1980 (A No. 18), while the above 3 forest land map was built on the above 3 forest land map, the above m2 was installed on the above forest land map, and the land form and area [1,48 m20 m2 (1 m25 m2) omitted) on the above m20 m20 m2 (1,345 m20 m2). However, the above m20 m20 m2, the above forest land area and its surrounding forest land area were no more than the above m20 m2, and the above forest land area and its surrounding forest land area were no more than the above m2.

(C) Therefore, inasmuch as it is presumed that the registration of preservation of ownership of the forest in the above ( Address 3 omitted) was made on November 30, 1956 with respect to the above ( Address 3 omitted), the registration indicated as the 1st 3th malal of the forest in the forest shall be deemed a lawful registration of the forest in the ( Address 3 omitted) even though the current forest register was not kept in the competent authority, and therefore, the registration indicated as the 1st mal of the forest in the ( Address 3 omitted) forest in the ( Address 2 omitted) forest in the name of the defendant in the name of 1,488 square meters different from the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the same real estate, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant in the name of the non-party 2, who was first registered, shall be deemed null and void, unless the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the non-party 2

Therefore, the court below did not reach this conclusion, although the registration indicated as 3 non-party 2 on the indication of real estate ( Address 3 omitted) is valid as the registration on the forest land ( Address 3 omitted), and the registration on the registration on the preservation of ownership of non-party 2's forest land should be determined further on whether the registration on the preservation of ownership of the forest land is invalid, and the court below did not have sufficient evidence that the forest was divided from the forest land of this case ( Address 3 omitted) and there is no forest cadastral record, and the forest is not the same real estate as the forest of this case. Thus, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the rules of experience in determining the evidence inconsistent with the rules of experience, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of ownership. The part pointing this out is with merit

3. However, the presumption of registration of preservation of ownership is broken if a person other than the title holder was found to have suffered from the situation of the relevant land, and the fact that Nonparty 1 was found to have suffered from the situation is as recognized by the court below, and thus, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Nonparty 2 was broken out. However, the plaintiffs asserted that Nonparty 2, who was his father (the father non-party 6, his father non-party 1, was married to the non-party 1) as his father, was succeeded to ( Address 3 omitted) as his father. Meanwhile, according to the records, the non-party 2, as the head of the non-party 6, died on July 10, 1952, and the non-party 1, as his mother, died without his bereaved family (the non-party 6 evidence No. 6 and the record No. 116, the non-party 2, who was already in possession of the ownership registration in the name of the non-party 1, the plaintiffs should have examined and judged whether the ownership registration was completed within the non-party 2's title 16.

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)