The presumption of right recorded in the owner's column among "public announcement of incorporation into a reserved forest" in Article 1 of the Sejong Forest Ordinance.

Where an individual is entered in the "public announcement of incorporation into a reserved forest" in a state-owned forest, the right presumption shall be given to such entry.

Article 1 of the Sejong Forest Order (Abolition of Decree No. 10, Jun. 20, 191), Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Decree (Abolition of Ordinance No. 74, Jun. 20, 191) and Article 4(1)1 of the same Decree (Abolition of Ordinance No. 73, Aug. 31, 191)

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

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant from among the mining Gimnam-Jin-Jinsa

Chuncheon District Court Decision 92Na3940 delivered on October 8, 1993

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

As to the Grounds of Appeal

1. The ground for the claim of this case is "No. 8 of this case's forest land ( Address 1 omitted) and 35,306 square meters (No. 6 of 35,06 square meters) are originally owned by the deceased non-party 1, who was originally owned by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs were inherited by the plaintiffs through the deceased non-party 2, and since the deceased non-party 3 completed registration of preservation of ownership without any title on November 22, 1971 and completed registration of transfer of ownership under the defendant's name, each of the above registrations is null and void." The court below rejected this case's forest land was first owned by the above non-party 1 at the time of the death of the above non-party 1, and the testimony of the non-party 4, non-party 5, non-party 6, and non-party 7 is not believed, and there is no difference between the plaintiff's land and the forest land No. 8 of this case's forest land No. 1 and the forest No. 8 of this case's.

2. Therefore, I will first examine whether the above two forests are identical.

In contrast to the fact that the area of "No. 35,306 square meters (No. 6 square meters)", which is the lot number of the forest of this case, is now "No. 35,306 square meters (No. 35,000 square meters)", "No. 3-1, No. 4-1, and the fact-finding inquiry table "No. 5 m. 5 m.," as recognized by the court below. (Therefore, the difference is no. 2-m.). However, the court below concluded that there is no difference between "No. 2-m. 1 and the forest of this case" on the ground that there is no difference between "No. 3-m. 2" and "No. 1-m. 2-m. 1-m. 1-m. 2-m. 3-m. m., it is hard to see that there is no difference between "No. 1-m. 1-m. m., it is adjacent to the forest of this case. 2-m. 1-m.

Therefore, the court below's determination that the above two forests are not identical solely for the above reasons is erroneous in the incomplete hearing or incomplete reasoning. Therefore, there is a reason to point out that the court below erred in this point.

3. Next, whether the forest of this case can be seen as owned by the deceased Nonparty 1 can be seen as owned by the deceased Nonparty 1.

A. The statement of evidence No. 4-1 and the fact-finding inquiry reply to the Director of the Government Records Preservation Office of the court below is a document sent by the Governor of Gangwon-do to the Director of the Korea Forest Department of March 27, 1928. The title is "with respect to the submission of the erosion control plan for the three years of fire extinguishing (fire extinguishing)" and the content is "the plan for the construction of the zone No. 2 in Gyeyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, Gangwon-do as the "the plan for the construction of the zone No. 2 in Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, Seo-do" and "the 138,047 glusssssssss and seedlings of 138,047" and "the above 1,500 glus and gluss and glusss and gluss and gluss and glus and glus and glus and gluss and gs."

In addition, the evidence No. 3-1 is that "No. 281 of the Joseon General Co., Ltd. announced on June 27, 1930 of the Joseon General Co., Ltd., and its contents are "in the reserved forest from June 29, 1930 pursuant to Article 1 of the Afforestation Decree," and the above "No. 34 parcels, including the woodlands stated in the cadastral report of the area where the construction work was performed in the 3-year erosion control year" are subject to the said 34 parcels, and the owners of "No. 1 ( Address 1 omitted) 5 - - 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.

B. Meanwhile, as of June 20, 1930 when the notice was issued, the procedure to incorporate the forest into the reserved forest shall be deemed to be the procedure to incorporate it into the reserved forest. Article 1 of the Climin Decree (No. 10 of the Climin Decree No. 1980, Jun. 20, 191) provides, “The Climin may, if deemed necessary for the security of the national land, prevention of danger and injury, development of water sources, objectives of navigation, public hygiene, fishing division (referring to the inducement and proliferation of fish; hereinafter referred to as “fish division”) or windation, include the climination into the reserved forest.” Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Climin Ordinance (No. 74, Jun. 20, 191) provides, “No. 1 shall be incorporated into the reserved forest and announced in the official gazette of the Climinian Republic of Korea” (No. 73, 191) and “No. 1 shall be incorporated into the reserved Forest Ordinance,” (hereinafter referred to be referred to as “No official order”).

C. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the forest of this case is completed to the above non-party 1 at the time of the public announcement of incorporation into a reserved forest, in full view of the opinions of the party members (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 906, Jul. 14, 1992; 91Da33025, Feb. 11, 1992; 91Da3025, Feb. 11, 192; 2000; 200Da33309, Feb. 11, 2002) when it is prepared, the forest of this case is included in the “public announcement of incorporation into a reserved forest” as stated in the evidence A-1, as well as the “public announcement of incorporation into a reserved forest.”

D. Therefore, the court below's determination that the forest of this case was insufficient to recognize that the forest of this case was owned by Nonparty 1 as the ownership of the above Nonparty 1 with only the statement No. 3-1, and it was not sufficient to recognize that the forest of this case was owned by him until his death was made is erroneous in the misapprehension of the purport of the statement, which affected the conclusion

4. The judgment below is reversed by accepting the appeal, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)