(a) Estimated history of registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the owner restored under the Cadastral Act;

(b) Whether it can be viewed as land owned by a clan solely by the fact that it is a tombstone or a tombstone;

A. According to the procedures prescribed in the Cadastral Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the name of the defendant was restored to the forest register by reporting the ownership of the forest, and the name of the owner on the forest register was changed to the defendant, and if registration of preservation of ownership of the forest was made based on this, the defendant is presumed to be the owner. Therefore, in order to deny the presumption of ownership of the forest, the plaintiff is liable to prove the invalidity of registration.

B. The circumstances leading up to which land becomes the soil of a particular tomb may include cases where a clan related to a particular tomb acquires the ownership of the land and establishes the land owned by a person among his descendants as the soil of a particular tombstone. Thus, the fact that the land is a tombstone or a tombstone shall not be deemed to belong to the clan.

a.B. Article 186 of the Civil Code, Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Meu1036 Decided April 27, 1982 (Gong1982, 530) (Gong1982, 530) b. Supreme Court Decision 83Do1726 Decided March 13, 1984 (Gong1984, 663) (Gong1986, 118), Supreme Court Decision 91Da14062 Decided September 13, 191 (Gong1991, 2531)

A clan (a clan of the Republic of Korea shall be the same as that of the clan of the same clan).

Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Chuncheon District Court Decision 93Na4346 delivered on May 6, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Cadastral Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a report on ownership of a forest was filed and the name of the defendant was restored in the forest register, and the name of the owner in the above forest register was changed to the defendant, and if a registration of ownership preservation was made on the basis thereof, the defendant is presumed to be the owner of the forest. Therefore, in order to deny the presumption of the above registration, the plaintiff is liable to prove the invalidity of the above registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Meu950, Nov. 22, 1983; 81Meu1036, Apr. 27, 1982). In addition, since the circumstance where a clan related to a specific grave acquired the ownership of the land and established the land as the soil above the specific grave, it can not be deemed that the land owned by a person among his descendants was owned by a clan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da1036, Apr. 27, 1986).

From the same point of view, the court below was just in holding that the forest of this case was not enough to recognize that the forest of this case was owned by the plaintiff, since the forest of this case was owned by a majority of the plaintiff clan clans in its ground and the forest of this case was installed every year, but the evidences alone are insufficient to recognize that the forest of this case was owned by the plaintiff. There is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, nor any misapprehension of the legal principles as to the mistake of facts or the presumption

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)