Whether a person recorded as a relative on a forest land map prepared in accordance with the order of the investigation of the Gu's forest land can be immediately viewed as a special relative on the old Ordinance of the Forestry and Arts (negative)

Even if a person is indicated as a relative on the forest land map prepared in accordance with Article 51 of the former Chosun Forestry Survey Order (repealed, No. 59, Nov. 26, 1918) and can be seen as a relative at the time of the forest survey, he/she cannot solely determine whether he/she is a person with a relationship with a relative at the time of the survey. Meanwhile, according to the former Decree on the Special Connection of Shipbuilding (Ordinance No. 7, Apr. 5, 1926, 1926, and repealed), only a part of his/her relation should be transferred to a person as a special relative. Thus, without clearly examining whether a person as a relative on the forest survey report of the Joseon Forestry Decree has a specific relation with the forest land, he/she cannot be recognized as a person as a previous owner of the forest land or a person as a special successor as a national owner of the forest land because he/she did not have a cadastral guidance as prescribed in Article 19 of the former Sam River Act (No. 19, Feb. 21, 192).

Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the former Decree on the Special Domination of Shipbuilding (repealed by Ordinance No. 7, Apr. 5, 1926), Article 3 of the former Decree on the Investigation of Shipbuilding Forest (repealed by Ordinance No. 5, May 1, 1918), Article 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Decree on the Investigation of Shipbuilding Forest (Ordinance No. 38, May 1, 1918), Article 51 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Decree on the Investigation of Shipbuilding Forest (repealed by Ordinance No. 59, Nov. 26, 1918), Article 19 of the former Ordinance on the Conversion of Chosun Forest (Abolition by Ordinance No. 7, Nov. 21, 1918), Article 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Da13152 delivered on June 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2075), Supreme Court Decision 94Da46411 delivered on April 11, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1837), Supreme Court Decision 95Da1613, 1620 delivered on November 28, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 158)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea

Supreme Court Decision 93Da60519 Delivered on March 11, 1994

Jeonju District Court Decision 94Na1695 delivered on July 22, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

Article 3 of the Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land (Ordinance No. 5 of May 1, 1918; Order No. hereinafter referred to as the "Investigation Decree") provides that the owner of forest shall report to the head of Si/Gun/Gu the name or address of the land and the location of the land within the period as determined by the inspector. Any person who has the annual interest as determined by the Decree on the National Land shall make a report in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph. In this case, with respect to the state forest which has no relative as referred to in the preceding paragraph, the matters as provided in paragraph (1) shall be notified to the head of Si/Gun/Ku under the conditions as determined by the Ordinance on the Investigation of Forestry (Ordinance No. 38 of May 1918) or the Enforcement Decree of the said Decree (Ordinance No. 1 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 38) that he had no relation as provided in the preceding Ordinance on the Ownership of National Forest Land or the Decree No. 1000, Mar. 1, 2012>

In full view of the contents of all the above provisions, even if a person who is deemed as a relative at the time of the investigation into a forest is indicated as being on the forest land map prepared pursuant to Article 51 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Investigation into Human Resources, such person cannot be determined solely by itself as a person with a relation to the forest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da13152, Jun. 24, 1994; 94Da46411, Apr. 11, 1995; 95Da1613, Nov. 28, 1995; 95Da1613,1620, etc.). Meanwhile, according to the above transfer order, the court below’s determination that only only part of the relatives among them should be deemed as a special relative, and it is not sufficient for the non-party to the above transfer of the forest land under the premise that the non-party, who was recorded as a relative to the forest survey report had any specific relation to the forest.

However, according to the records of this case, the court below did not conduct any deliberation on the point that a member pointed out in the judgment of remanding, and did not make any deliberation on the fact that the forest land of this case was owned by the defendant at the time when the forest investigation was conducted, unlike the previous documents submitted in the court below prior to remand, and the deceased non-party reported the fact that the deceased non-party was transferred the forest of this case from the defendant as a special relative of the above forest of this case at the end of June 1936 according to the above transfer order. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the purport of the judgment of remand, as well as in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above investigation order and transfer order, and it is therefore justified.

Therefore, without examining other grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)