The owner of the forest survey report shall be written as the "State" in the column of the owner of the forest survey report and, if the address and name of the specific individual are written in the relative column, the person recorded as the relative shall be deemed to have been treated as the forest owner.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 3 and 10 of the Decree on the Survey of Forest Land (amended by Presidential Decree No. 5 of May 1, 1918, repealed), Articles 1 and 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Forestry Research Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 38 of May 1918, 1918), where the owner’s address and name are stated together in the column of the owner of the forest land prepared under the above Order, the owner of the forest land who was recorded as the relative of the relative of the owner is not in accordance with the previous Ordinance on the Survey of Forest Land (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19100, May 21, 1918) and the former Ordinance on the Survey of Forest Land (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19100, May 1, 1918) and the former Ordinance on the Survey of Forest Land is not in conformity with the said Ordinance, and it is difficult for the owner to enter the same as the owner’s address and form of the forest land in which he had a different relation.

Article 186 of the Civil Act; Articles 3 and 10 of the former Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land of Shipbuilding (amended by Presidential Decree No. 5 of May 1, 1918); Articles 1 and 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land of Shipbuilding (amended by Presidential Decree No. 38 of May 1, 1918); Article 19 of the former Enforcement Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land of Shipbuilding (Presidential Decree No. 38 of May 21, 191)

Supreme Court Decision 88Meu27195 delivered on August 8, 1989 (Gong1989, 1353) 92Da43548 delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1531) 93Da26304 delivered on April 26, 1994

Plaintiff 1 and eight plaintiffs, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and one other

Korea

Suwon District Court Decision 93Na8327 delivered on January 18, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the owner of the forest of this case was jointly deceased on March 5, 1920 and jointly inherited property by the plaintiffs on December 15, 1975, and determined that the forest of this case was originally owned by the above non-party 1, the relative to the defendant as the non-party 1, and the date of report or notification as the 8 (1919) April 20 of Japan as the 199. The above forest of this case was the 1stma, the mother of the above non-party 1, and the non-party 2 managed it from the fleet of the above non-party 1's fleet. The above non-party 1 died on March 5, 1920, and the non-party 1 died on December 15, 1975, and the plaintiffs did not actually own the forest of this case as the owner of the above forest of this case, which was owned by the non-party 1 and the owner of the above forest of this case.

2. Article 3 of the Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land (Ordinance No. 5, May 1, 1918; Order No. hereinafter referred to as the "Investigation Decree") provides that "the owner of forest shall report to the head of a leap or Myeon, the name or address of the forest, and the location of the land within the period prescribed by the seal manager. A person who has a leap or Myeon as prescribed by the Ordinance on the Investigation of Forest Land shall also report to the head of a leap or Myeon in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph. In this case, with respect to state-owned forest land without relatives under the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the matters as prescribed in paragraph (1) shall be notified to the head of a leap or Myeon under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance on the Investigation of Forestry (Ordinance No. 38, May 1, 1918)" and Article 3 of the above Decree provides that "the owner of the forest shall legally have the right to the inspection of state-owned forest under the provisions of Article 9 of the Decree on the Investigation of Forestry Act (No. 10).

In light of the contents of all the above provisions, in a case where the owner of the forest survey report prepared under the above investigation Decree is entered as the "State" and the address and name of the specific individual are entered in the column of the relative concerned, if the former owner of the forest reverted to the State or his heir because the person entered as the relative did not give an instruction to the land register under Article 19 of the former Telecommunication Act, it is highly likely that the former owner of the forest reverted to the State at the time of the situation of the above forest under Article 10 of the above investigation Decree. (See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu27195 delivered on August 8, 1989), it is difficult to see that the above forest belongs to the person having a relation with another contents, unless there are any special circumstances, it is the situation that the owner of the forest belongs to the person having a relation with the owner of the forest under the above investigation report, and thus, it is difficult to see that the person having a relation with the forest was the owner of the forest under the above investigation report as the owner of the forest under the above Act.

Furthermore, according to Article 79 of the Joseon Forestry Investigation Order (No. 59, Nov. 26, 1918), which is prepared as a guideline for the detailed procedures of the investigation of forest land under the above Decree, it is clearly stated that the name and address of the relative of the state forest that must be treated as being a public interest pursuant to Article 10 of the above Decree shall be stated in the owner's seed name and address column, and that it shall be stated in the remarks column of the owner's name and address, and that it shall be stated in the remarks column of the separate sheet No. 9 (Forest Survey Form) in the remarks column. Thus, if the owner of the forest survey report is written as a specific individual, and the relative is also written as a "non-public interest" in the remarks column of the said survey report, it is difficult to view that the person who was recorded as the owner's previous forest or forest is not the owner's relative under the provisions of Articles 19 through 19 of the above Decree, unless it is found that the above guidelines were not followed.

3. According to the records, the above non-party 1 was a state-owned forest on the owner's column of the forest survey report in relation to the forest of this case, and the address and name of the above non-party 1 were recorded in the owner's column of the forest survey report and the relative column of the above non-party 1 were recorded in the column of the report and the notice date. However, as it was acknowledged by the court below, the above non-party 1 was a state-owned forest since the above forest did not go through the cadastral guidance as provided in Article 19 of the former Climin Act, or it was actually a previous owner or his heir at the time of the above survey, or it did not have any circumstance to deem that the above non-party 1 was a previous owner or his heir, or that he reported the connection with the above contents at the time of the survey, or submitted the annual status of the ownership of the forest of this case to the purport of seeking the situation in his future. In particular, the above forest survey report does not fully state that the above forest of this case is "no cadastral guidance" in the corresponding column of the forest.

In full view of these circumstances, the forest of this case is considered to be owned by the defendant (state) rather than by the above non-party 1, and the above non-party 1 is considered to be a mere person with a right to file a report and to be investigated.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized that the above non-party 1 was a relative on the forest survey report for the forest land of this case, but it was immediately considered that he was an owner of the forest land of this case. In this regard, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the forest survey under the Joseon Forest Investigation Decree, or by violating the rules of evidence, thereby making it erroneous in finding facts in violation of the rules of evidence. Thus, the issue of this point is with merit.

4. 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 Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)