In cases where a forest under a state-owned circumstance is indicated as owned by an individual in a public announcement of incorporation into a reserved forest based on the old forest Ordinance, whether the statement has the capacity to presume such right (affirmative)

In the case where an individual is written in the "public notice of the incorporation into a reserved forest of the Department of Shipbuilding" in accordance with the former Climination Decree (Ordinance No. 10, repealed, Jun. 20, 1911) with respect to forest land which has been State-ownedly-owned, the right presumption should be given to the statement.

Article 1 of the Gu Clim Management Decree (repealed Decree No. 10, Jun. 20, 191), Article 9 of the Gu Clim Management Enforcement Rule (Ordinance No. 74, Jun. 20, 191), Article 4(1)1 of the Gu Clim Management Implementation Procedure (repealed, Aug. 31, 191), Article 4(1)1 of the Gu Clim Management Enforcement Rule (repealed, 73, 191)

Supreme Court Decision 92Da906 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2402) Supreme Court Decision 93Da57841 delivered on February 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 109) Supreme Court Decision 95Da53652 delivered on February 27, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1108)

Yangcheon clans (Attorneys Yoon Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea

Suwon District Court Decision 96Na2283 delivered on September 20, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Under the statement other than the first chapter of evidence Nos. 10 ( Gyeonggi-do newsletter), it is discussed that there is a fire extinguishing on June 12, 15, and that it is about May 12, 15. However, the court below's adoption of evidence Nos. 10 cannot be deemed unlawful. In addition, in case where an individual is stated in the "public notice of incorporation into a reserved forest of the Joseon General Government Department" under the "public notice of incorporation into a reserved forest of the Joseon General Government Department" under the Decree on 10 (Ordinance No. 10, Jun. 20, 1911), the party member (the party member) who should have the capacity to estimate the right should be included in the statement, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to incorporation into a reserved forest of this case, and misunderstanding of legal principles as to non-party 25, Feb. 25, 1994.

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 Ho-ho (Presiding Justice)