Whether it can be deemed that the forest land was transferred under Article 2 of the former Decree on the Special Shipbuilding of Shipbuilding solely on the fact that the forest survey report and the forest land survey map are written as a relative (negative)

In full view of the provisions of Article 3 of the former Decree on the Survey of Forest Land (amended by Presidential Decree No. 5 of May 1, 1918, repealed), Article 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Shipbuilding Forestry Decree (Ordinance No. 38 of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs of May 1, 1918, repealed), Articles 1 and 2 of the former Decree on the Transfer of Special Dog for Shipbuilding (amended by Ordinance No. 7, Apr. 5, 1926), and Article 51 of the former Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land (amended by Ordinance No. 59, Nov. 26, 1918), each of the provisions of Article 51 of the former Ordinance on the Investigation of Forest Land (amended by Ordinance No. 5 of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs of May 1, 1918), even if the former Ordinance on the Investigation of Forest Land was entered as a relative to the Forest Land, and thus, it cannot be determined as a person having a relation to shipbuilding as a national relative to the forest.

Article 186 of the Civil Act; Article 3 of the former Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land for Shipbuilding (repealed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 38 of May 1, 1918); Article 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Ordinance on the Investigation of Forest Land for Shipbuilding (repealed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 38 of May 1, 1918); Articles 1 and 2 of the former Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land for Shipbuilding (Abolition by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 7 of April 5, 1926); Article 51 of the former Enforcement Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land for Shipbuilding (repealed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 59 of Nov.

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

Plaintiff (Attorney Song-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Na26224 Delivered on June 3, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Article 3 of the former Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land (amended by Presidential Decree No. 5, May 1, 1918) provides that the owner of forest shall report to the head of a Myeon, his name or address within the period of time fixed by the owner of the forest. In this case, the owner of the forest shall make a report as to the state-owned forest land according to the provisions of the preceding paragraph. In this case, the owner of the land shall also make a report as to its annual rent. Article 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Forestry Investigation Decree (amended by Ordinance No. 38, May 1, 1918) provides that the owner of the forest shall be entitled to report as to the next piece of land owned by the deceased under Article 3; subparagraph 1 provides that the owner of the forest shall be entitled to the next piece of land owned by his heir; the owner of the forest land shall be entitled to the next piece of land owned by his heir; and the owner of the forest land shall be entitled to the next piece of land owned by his heir for the purpose of using it under the provisions of subparagraph 19.

In full view of these provisions, even if a person who is deemed a relative at the time of the investigation into a forest is indicated as a relative in the forest land survey report or as a relative in the forest land survey report prepared under Article 51 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Decree of the Forestry Investigation Decree, it cannot be determined by itself as a person with a relation to the forest land at the time of the investigation. Meanwhile, according to Articles 1 and 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act, only only a part of the related parties as provided in each subparagraph of Article 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Special Doging of Shipbuilding shall be conceded to a person as a special relative. Thus, even if a forest land survey report is entered as a relative in the forest survey report and is entered as a forest land survey report as a relative, it cannot be viewed as being conceded by Article 2 of the former Decree on the Special Doging of Shipbuilding, unless it proves that he/she had a relation with the forest land specifically (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da1684, Apr. 198, 1988, 1996).

The court below, after compiling the evidence in its decision, found facts as stated in its decision, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the government at the time when the non-party 1, who was the plaintiff's assistance team, was transferred 3 6 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, the court below rejected all the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1 occupied the above woodland before 1908 or that the plaintiff occupied the above woodland from 1957 to 20 years. 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 misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)