Relationship between the person who has acquired the right to use forest and forest land by purchasing the standing timber and the person who has acquired the superficies thereon.

A person who has purchased any timber planted on the forest land and equipped with the method of nameing it may use the forest land until he thins out the relevant timber, and may also oppose against the person who has acquired superficies on the forest land after the method of nameing has been executed, unless there exist any special circumstances otherwise.

Article 186 of the Civil Act

Kim Jong-Ba

Hong-ray et al. and two others

Yeongdeungpo Branch Court of the first instance (88Gahap492 delivered on July 1, 200)

1. Of the original judgment, the part concerning the forest land listed in the annexed sheet 2, 3 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Hong C, and the part concerning the forest land listed in the annexed list No. 4 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Lee E-soo, shall be revoked, and the above case shall be remanded to the Youngcheon District Court Young branch support.

2. The Plaintiff’s appeal as to the forest land listed in the annexed Table 1 between the Defendant Red Cross and the Austria is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of appeal, the costs incurred with respect to the forest land listed in the annexed Table 1 between the Plaintiff, Defendant Hong-ray, and Haak-si shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The registration of creation of superficies in the Chuncheon District Court's Youngju and Defendant Haok-si on March 21, 1972 with respect to forests listed in the annexed Table 1, 2, and 3, and the registration of cancellation of the registration of creation of superficies in the annexed Table 4 with respect to forests listed in the annexed Table 4 shall be implemented respectively.

The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

As for the establishment of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (each copy of the register), Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, Gap evidence 6-8 (Evidence 8), Eul evidence 8-1 to 6-2, 6-1 to 3, 6-1 to 3, 6-1 to 3, 6-2, 157, 4-2, 5-1 to 3, 197, 5-1 to 3, 6-1 to 4, 6-1 to 3, 6-2, 6-1 to 3, 6-1 to 3, 6-1 to 4, 6-1 to 3, 6-1 to 3, 6-1 to 5, 6-1 to 3, 6-1 to 3, 6-1 to 9, 6-1 to 4, 6-1 to 3, 6-1 to 3, 5-1 to 4, 195.

The plaintiff was owned by the non-party interest company. On September 13, 1959, the plaintiff purchased 16,000 pine trees planted on the above forest land from the non-party interest company on Sep. 13, 1959, and was owned with the name of the person. The registration of creation of superficies in the name of the non-party interest company on the forest listed in the annexed sheet No. 1,2, and 3, and the registration of creation of superficies in the name of the defendant Leey, which was completed on the forest listed in the annexed sheet No. 1,2, and 4, was made without permission from the competent authority under the Non-party interest company Act. The registration of creation of superficies in the name of the non-party interest company was made on the forest listed in the annexed sheet No. 1,2, and was made on the forest listed in the annexed sheet No. 4.

However, the court below rejected the lawsuit of this case on the ground that the plaintiff was not a party qualification. Thus, according to the above facts, the plaintiff purchased from the non-party interest company's non-party 2, 3, and 4 the transported trees on the forest land list and had the method of the name of the plaintiff's name, and it should be deemed that the non-party 2 had the right to use the forest as stated in the separate sheet No. 2, 3, 4 with regard to the non-party interest company until the non-party 2 purchased the transported trees on the forest land list as stated in the separate sheet No. 2, 3, and 4, and it can be viewed that the non-party 4 had the right to use the forest as stated in the separate sheet No. 9 with regard to the non-party 1's right to use the forest as stated in the separate sheet No. 4 as to the non-party 2's right to use the forest land on the ground that the non-party 3's right to claim for the creation of the superficies under the separate sheet as to use of forest land.

Therefore, among the claims in this case, the part concerning forest land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 and 3 between the plaintiff and the defendant Hong Y, and the part concerning forest land listed in the annexed sheet Nos. 4 between the plaintiff and the defendant Lee Jong-tae should enter the principal claim and examine whether there exists any ground. However, the original judgment dismissing the claim on the ground that the plaintiff was not a party to the claim, which dismissed it on the ground that the court below was not a party to the claim, is unfair. In accordance with Article 388 of the Civil Procedure Act, the part concerning the above forest land in the original judgment is revoked, and the above case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court which is the original court, and the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the registration of creation of superficies as to forest land listed in the annexed sheet No. 1 against the defendant Hong Haju and Haok-si shall be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was not a party to the lawsuit. However, in this case where only the plaintiff was dissatisfied with this part, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is without merit, and it is dismissed by applying Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Judge)