(a) Inheritance relationship in cases where a woman who had temporarily succeeded to the family head of a family according to the custom of the Gu dies or left the family and an adopted adopted child is selected for the former family head within a reasonable period of time;

(b) whether the name of the relative is presumed to be owned by the relative if the name of the relative is written in the column of the forest survey report, or in the remarks column, “no cadastral map” is written;

A. According to the former custom, in a case where a male in the married family who is the head of a family dies without a person to inherit the head of a family, the father, mother, wife, or dependent, becomes a female in the order of respect until the person to be adopted after the birth of the family is selected, and the right and property of the head of a family who was inherited to the head of a family is succeeded to the person after the birth of the adopted family. If the adopted family is selected after the birth of the adopted family without the selection of the adopted family, the right and property of the head of a family who was inherited to the adopted family will be succeeded to the person after the birth of the adopted family. If the adopted family is selected within a reasonable period from the death of the adopted family or the birth of the adopted family, the right and property of the adopted family will not be inherited to the adopted family even if there is no person to inherit the head of the family.

(b)the owner of the forest survey report shall be presumed to be owned by the relative if the name of the relative is written in the column of the forest survey report, even though it was written in the column of the “state”, and if written in the column of “no cadastral map”, the forest shall be presumed to be owned by

A. Articles 984 and 100 of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 4199, Jan. 13, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Da18085 delivered on September 25, 1992 (Gong1992, 2991) (Gong1994Sang, 351 delivered on December 10, 1993) (Gong1994Sang, 351). Supreme Court Decision 92Da43548 delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1531 delivered on June 24, 1994)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

[Defendant-Appellee] Chang-Jak, Chang-Jak (Law Firm Chang-Jak, Attorney Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na14112 delivered on August 16, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to the former custom before the enforcement of the Civil Act, in case where a male in the married family who is the father of the family deceased without a person to inherit the family head of the family, until the person to inherit the family head of the family is selected, the right and property of the deceased shall be succeeded to the ex post facto mother of the family head of the family, who was succeeded to the family head of the family, if the father was selected after a temporary inheritance of the family head of the family and the post facto mother of the family head of the family, until the person to inherit the family head of the family is selected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Da720, Jun. 26, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu13, Sept. 26, 1989). If a woman who was temporarily inherited the family head of the family without being selected by the ex post facto mother of the family head of the family and there is no person to inherit the family head of the family, it shall not be inherited by the ex post facto mother of the family head of the family.

The court below acknowledged that the non-party 2, who was the head of the family, died on January 22, 1923 and was the deceased's heir as the head of the above deceased, and the non-party 2 died on June 11, 1932, but his wife and children were all dead, and thus his mother became the deceased's mother and became the deceased's temporary heir of property. The above non-party 3 died on July 13, 1939 and the non-party 3 died on July 13, 1939, the above non-party 2's family council appointed the plaintiff who was the children of the above non-party 4 who was the birth of the above non-party 2 as the birth of the above non-party 2, and completed the report of adoption on the same day. The judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of the previous legal principles as to the non-party 2's inheritance, or there was no error in the judgment of the court below as to the non-party 1, as seen above.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the forest of this case was owned by the defendant from the original date or that the registration of preservation of ownership in the defendant's name with respect to the forest of this case is valid in accordance with the substantive relationship. In light of the records and records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error in violation of the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, such as the theory of lawsuit,

The ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

According to relevant evidence, the judgment of the court below that the non-party 1 recorded in the "relative" column of the forest survey report on the forest land of this case is the same person as the non-party 1 who is the plaintiff's decedent, is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence

Article 19 of the Transboundary Law, No. 1 of the 2-year Forest Act, provides that "the owner of a forest shall report to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry within three years from the date of entry into force of this Act, along with a map of the area of the cadastral grade of the forest, and any person who fails to report within the period shall do so in total." However, Article 3 of the Forestry Investigation Decree and Article 1 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Decree provide that "the previous owner or his heir of a forest reverted to the State shall report as a relative of the State," and Article 10 of the Forestry Investigation Decree provides that "the previous owner or his heir of a forest reverted to the State shall not be the owner or his heir of the forest belonging to the State in accordance with the provisions of Article 19 of the Thee-2-year Forest Act, and it shall be the owner or his heir of the forest belonging to the State in the remarks column, and it shall be the owner or his heir of the forest in the remarks column of Article 19 of the Forestry Act."

However, when examining the forest survey report on the forest land of 25 forest land and mountain land of 89 forest land written in the owner column as “state”, it can be known that the relative column is “non-party 1” and “no cadastral map” in the remarks column, so the above forest land is presumed to be an assessment against the above non-party 1, who is the relative party, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation like the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below determined to the same purport. There is no reason to discuss it.

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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)